The real 'batteriser'

[al brown]

Carrying on from page 213 of here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg789650/#msg789650


Someone said:

"I'm sure your product has benefits...
...Would I use it? No, I'm fine without, my light switch still works and I have no need for candlelight in my room."

Meanwhile, in the UK alone 43 000 tonnes of AA cells alone (let alone other sizes) go to landfill gradually increasing the toxicity of the land and then water table whilst we offer a cheap, everlasting alternative.

When your electricity fails, our houses are lit up very well (I could measure the lux etc, but much better than 1 candle) using batteries that we used to throw away.

Safe lights to make house look occupied instead of 240 volt timers and bulbs. 

Small lightweight devices for campers, sailors, tent pegs lit up with rubbish batteries.

Lots of benefits - no?

Not to mention Third World countries that can only afford 10 AA batteries a month in their mud huts.


As you guys can see, this is a product that works and may be a niche market.

But why has our campaign only been looked at by 900 people in over 1 month?

Here is a video I just took with my 'phone of an oil lamp -vs - AAA battery of 1Volt in our product.

EDIT: Video does not show the difference in brightness well - need to get my lux meter out.

Will see how long that battery powers those LEDs for.

https://youtu.be/J4dz5zNmYbQ

www.batterysqueeze.com

www.allproductdesign.co.uk
www.newboatgear.co.uk
www.ledknowhow.co.uk

[Delta]

Mate, please don't take this the wrong way, but your websites are absolutely awful.  Truly terrible.

[miguelvp]

For what I see, your product is a joule thief, that probably oscillates at the best frequencies for your selected LEDs, but that's not what the batteriser claims. Theirs is a miniaturized DC-DC convertor, so it's not the same product.

As for backing up a joule thief project the problem you face is that no one will use their spent batteries for some nightlights where the spent batteries are abundant. shipping those to a place where they could make use of any type of light at night will cost too much on transport and the disposal later on would be problematic.

Don't get me wrong, I think joule thiefs are cool as in it brings the inductor to saturation and on collapsing that field it has enough current to drive the LED and doing it so fast (maybe around 20KHz) that to your eye it looks like it's always on, but other than that is really not an innovation and many of them are available for sale or you can build your own because they are very simple to do.

Edit: Just to add that I would not back up the batteriser either, even if they probably have some benefits as well the energy they could get is probably not much at all, and definitely not 8x more

[al brown]

Yep. I know. The best I can do with templates etc - forgot how to use Dreamweaver years ago. Anything specific about a website that you think we could change?

When I say we have no money to pay people to do it, it is true. Getting laid off in the middle of your career is a bummer - even worse when you have life savings of £20k (yep, government jobs don't pay much here, even for senior scientific officers) and you see it all spent on food, mortgage etc and nothing to replenish it with.

The other thing is that we are all DIY people - we fix our own cars, houses etc. Here it can be seen to be a false economy, but we if we pay someone to do it, we will have to borrow money and then we'll probably lose our houses or something. If only we were risk takers one of our other inventions that another company thought of 9 years after we did, would have kept us comfortable. He who hesitates is lost.

We need business partners and all sorts. We can't pay them. We can offer them shares of the company, but who goes for that?

We have an innovative lifejacket that will save lives unlike any other. We have a liferaft that will never fail. Most of our inventions revolve around our hobby of sailing.

We are in a rut and were really annoyed when "batteriser" came out and thought crowdfunding would get us started.

We didn't want to start with our best inventions because we haven't paid for patents yet.

This product cannot be patented (we could invalidate Batteroo's patent with our prior art because we put a Joule thief and a DC to DC step up converter into a sleeve way before them and have the UK Patent office to prove it) so we hoped it would gain some money, we mass manufacture, sell cheap, flat batteries get looked at differently, we use the proceeds on our really good inventions.

Guess we're screwed.

[miguelvp]

This product cannot be patented (we could invalidate Batteroo's patent with our prior art because we put a Joule thief into a sleeve way before them and have the UK Patent office to prove it) so we hoped it would gain some money, we mass manufacture, sell cheap, flat batteries get looked at differently, we use the proceeds on our really good inventions.

Guess we're screwed.

The thing is that the batteriser doesn't have a joule thief, different technology all together. So it would not invalidate their patent.

[al brown]

We have a patent attorney that has read our claims (submitted before USA ones)and Batteroo's claims and states they are practically identical (suspiciously so) and he would love to take them to court over it.

PS if you read their patent claims, it is all about an enclosure for electronics, nothing to do with the electronics (because the electronics have been common knowledge for years)

This product cannot be patented (we could invalidate Batteroo's patent with our prior art because we put a Joule thief into a sleeve way before them and have the UK Patent office to prove it) so we hoped it would gain some money, we mass manufacture, sell cheap, flat batteries get looked at differently, we use the proceeds on our really good inventions.

Guess we're screwed.

The thing is that the batteriser doesn't have a joule thief, different technology all together. So it would not invalidate their patent.

[FrankBuss]

But why has our campaign only been looked at by 900 people in over 1 month?

Well, your campaign looks awful, compared to the Batteriser campaign. First, I couldn't see what you were actually trying to sell just by reading the first few paragraphs where you start your campaign with how few views this campaign has, then a link to a totally unrelated campaign and then assuring that you know how to invent and that your product works. Usually people whose products don't work have do emphasize that their products work So far no word about your actual product.

Then the product itself: it is a LED candle with very limited applications, but it costs GBP 15 The Batteriser claims to work for any product which uses batteries and costs $2.50.

The campaign video is bad quality, too. Just a tinkerer demonstrating his jule thief. Lots of text, no one says something or at least some music, anything you can do wrong with different fonts etc., and finally a video image of a woman in underwear, which might offend the few people left after watching the video. So no wonder it has so view views. Sorry, but nobody will write about it.

Regarding your webpage: as mentioned by others, it is terrible, too. No layout at all, just lots of text and images all over the place. And then the content: "Battery Squeeze will get three times more voltage from a battery than is initially used". It doesn't make sense to say it gets "more voltage" from a battery. It is all about energy, not voltage. And most modern devices works down to 1V, as Dave demonstrated:



This is the closed-loop cutoff voltage. If you measure the battery with a multimeter, it is the open-loop voltage, and after the battery recovered for some time. At least you don't claim that 80% of the capacity is still left. But would be good to post some measurements, like how many watt-hours are still left when you measure 1.2 V and how long your LED candle can run with it. The battery graph with mAh would be better in watt-hour, too. Your candle might even work for months with a full battery, but your webpage lacks exact measurements and numbers.

But some points on your webpage are interesting. For example it sounds plausible that a fully discharged battery is less toxic. But do you have a reference for this claim? And I would like to see a reference for your claim, that it is good for NiMH to fully discharge them. The Wikipedia page says that it is not good for higher voltage battery packs, because some cell can reverse polarity of other cells, but might be not true for a single AA or AAA battery.

[al brown]

Thank you

[tom66]

I think the problem with AA batteries is they can't possibly compete with stored energy in a rechargeable battery. On the cost front, at least.

Let me explain. An AA battery, fully charged, stores about 3Wh of energy. Let's be generous and assume 50%, or 1.5Wh remains in the battery after it is disposed of.  But 1kWh of electrical energy costs only £0.12. So your 1.5Wh battery has to cost less than 0.02p to use to break even with a rechargeable battery after say 50-100 cycles. So forget any use of said batteries from some central landfill as that would never make economic sense, it has to work just from what you throw away, which isn't very many batteries (I probably dispose of a couple every year as I only use disposable cells in remote controls, wall clocks, etc.)

Now if you do use a lot of disposable batteries then great this might work. However there is now of course the risk that your emergency light will not work when you most need it, as AA batteries have a habit of leaking when over-discharged, and the behaviour of a flat battery is for the voltage to remain constant until near the end of the discharge curve which with a boost converter will cause a sudden reduction in light output. So I'm not convinced this will be all that popular for emergency use.

[al brown]

Anyone that has studied alkalines know that only Duracell leak (except for the odd ridiculously cheap crappy alkalines) - but Duraacell often leak A LOT - totally well marketed but poor batteries - see data on my website - Energizer are best and Duracell come way down the list.

I use rechargeables. Our product breaks up internal crystalisation by discharging them SLOWLY and at a low current consumption hence making rechargeables last many more cycles so is a benefit for rechargeables too. See Battery University website for details of chemistry.

But I use a lot of cheap alkalines in kids toys etc where I don't want my precious rechargeables to be lost. I like to look after my rechargeables.

People keep saying rechargeables are used so WHO is buying and throwing away 43 000 tonnes of AA cells in UK alone and 75% of them are at 1.2 V (we empried a recycle bin) and some are at 1.5 V

An X-box remote will drain one battery and leave the other pretty well alone - but the public don't test them and throw both batteries - at least with our product they could stick them in the product instead of bin and get light on windowsills, cupboards, shelves, lofts, stairs.

Product once mass manufactured would cost less than $1

But if a proven product an only raise £12 and a scam can raise $300k looks like crime pays better than hard work. Back to soldiering perhaps and screw science.

[GoneTomorrow]

But if a proven product an only raise £12 and a scam can raise $300k looks like crime pays better than hard work. Back to soldiering perhaps and screw science.

It's all about how they presented and marketed the campaign, just like Solar Roadways.

Science doesn't sell.

[al brown]

Anyone that has studied alkalines know that only Duracell leak (except for the odd ridiculously cheap crappy alkalines) - but Duracell often leak A LOT - totally well marketed but poor batteries - see data on my website - Energizer are best and Duracell come way down the list.

That is all wrong.  I have seen every brand of battery leak.  What are your qualifications for stating that? We have studied batteries for 7 years. Every other test shows that Duracell and Energizer are just about the same in quality.  Wrong. Look at www.batterysqueeze.com and the page called Info About Batteries. Duracell is 7th on the list. That list came from an independant review.

People keep saying rechargeables are used so WHO is buying and throwing away 43 000 tonnes of AA cells in UK alone and 75% of them are at 1.2 V (we empried a recycle bin) and some are at 1.5 V

If you read the Batteriser thread, you would know that open circuit voltage is meaningless.  What percentage of energy is left in those 1.2V cells? Enough to power a well chosen LED for 3 weeks non-stop producing light that is brighter than that found in a double AA cell incandescent Maglite - X-box remotes - will find the 1.5V battery has a lot of current remaining.

And the people that throw them away as a pair when one is at 0.4 V and the other is at 1.5 V

Your product may work, but it provides a function that people don't want (a very dim light).

What makes you think it is dim? It is very bright actually.
And do you speak for the whole planet?
Only 900 people have even seen our campaign because we didn't get PC world to make a splash about it.

[al brown]

But if a proven product an only raise £12 and a scam can raise $300k looks like crime pays better than hard work. Back to soldiering perhaps and screw science.

It's all about how they presented and marketed the campaign, just like Solar Roadways.

Science doesn't sell.

Campaign re-written, edited, etc - any better?

[EEVblog]

But if a proven product an only raise £12 and a scam can raise $300k looks like crime pays better than hard work. Back to soldiering perhaps and screw science.

Batteriser had infinitely better marketing than you, infinitely better manufacturing, and a much more practical product.
They are the reasons it got $300k and you got £12

Sure Batterisers claims are demonstrably ridiculous, but that's beside the point.

[FrankBuss]

Campaign re-written, edited, etc - any better?

Not much. Now it starts with "In a single sentence this campaign is: We have products that will FORCE 'flat' batteries that you normally throw away or recycle, to work again for up to 6 weeks by giving out useful light.". Ok, "you have products", but what is this campaign about? Compare this to the the start of Batteriser campaign: "Batteriser is a micro-thin, stainless steel sleeve that extends your battery's life by up to 8x.". It should be clear from the beginning what the customer gets for the money. You could start it with "Battery Squeeze is a LED candle which gives light for up to 6 weeks from dead batteries.".

But besides the presentation and the limited application, I guess one of the main problems is the price. GBP 15 is just too expensive. Your product can be bought at eBay for GBP 1.99:

http://cgi.ebay.com/281838622548

Might be different if you would show a good prototype, maybe 3D printed. And your presentation doesn't inspire confidence that you can do the mass production of the product.

[pdunz]

I agree with all the comments, especially the price.

15 GBP is $34 NZD or $32 AUD (will be more for shipping world wide unless included) which for what you are currently showcasing is very high for what it is.  Things people look into is A: the price and B: what they get for that and C: Website/Presentation/Promotion.  Now Batteriser is I presume $2.50USD - which is around $3.40AUD - now what would you think people will buy....  $32 led light or $3.40 product that you can put into practically anything?.

Another thing is your presentation video - I don't know but to me its not attention grabbing - be enthusiastic and believe in the product - the person talking and showing sounds like they are just winging it (making it up as they go along) and just not interested and I don't believe everyone will reach the end of the video before clicking the back button.  Have a look at Batteriser's website with the clean design and also their promotion videos and compare.

These are some of the things why people have back Batteriser more than your product.

Don't take any of the comments that I and others have said as mean - take it as helpful and constructive criticism.

[al brown]

But if a proven product an only raise £12 and a scam can raise $300k looks like crime pays better than hard work. Back to soldiering perhaps and screw science.

Batteriser had infinitely better marketing than you, infinitely better manufacturing, and a much more practical product.
They are the reasons it got $300k and you got £12

Sure Batterisers claims are demonstrably ridiculous, but that's beside the point.

Right, I am re-mortgaging the house, hiring a PR team to put a campaign together for my Tesla Gravity engine (that doesn't exist, but a good marketing campaign will get around that), then I'll run off with the scammed $300 k   

[al brown]

But besides the presentation and the limited application, I guess one of the main problems is the price. GBP 15 is just too expensive. Your product can be bought at eBay for GBP 1.99:  RRP will be £2 but we need the funding to enable that price.

http://cgi.ebay.com/281838622548  This is for  DIY kit, not a finished product

Might be different if you would show a good prototype, maybe 3D printed. And your presentation doesn't inspire confidence that you can do the mass production of the product.  The photos show two 3D printed prototypes, one white and one black that holds multiple AAA batteries whilst giving out light

So, more work to do or maybe give up. Will have to think about it.

[al brown]

I agree with all the comments, especially the price.

15 GBP is $34 NZD or $32 AUD (will be more for shipping world wide unless included) which for what you are currently showcasing is very high for what it is.  Things people look into is A: the price and B: what they get for that and C: Website/Presentation/Promotion.  Now Batteriser is I presume $2.50USD - which is around $3.40AUD - now what would you think people will buy....  $32 led light or $3.40 product that you can put into practically anything?.  When (IF) the batteriser hits the shops and fails to work, maybe they will help our product launch which will do what it says on the tin - and RRP will be £2

Another thing is your presentation video - I don't know but to me its not attention grabbing - be enthusiastic and believe in the product - the person talking and showing sounds like they are just winging it (making it up as they go along) and just not interested and I don't believe everyone will reach the end of the video before clicking the back button.  Have a look at Batteriser's website with the clean design and also their promotion videos and compare.

These are some of the things why people have back Batteriser more than your product.

Don't take any of the comments that I and others have said - take it as helpful and constructive criticism. 

Yes, all understood and taken on board.     Many thanks for all replies.

[/list][/color]

[NF6X]

At 0.3V an AA cell has 75% FEWER toxins in it than a 1.2V cell.

Al, can you share any references and/or data to support that claim? For that matter, can you list any of the toxins presumably present in an AA cell of any charge state?

[Delta]

People keep saying rechargeables are used so WHO is buying and throwing away 43 000 tonnes of AA cells in UK alone and 75% of them are at 1.2 V (we empried a recycle bin) and some are at 1.5 V

Is that open circuit (unloaded) voltages you are quoting, Al?

[EEVblog]

Right, I am re-mortgaging the house, hiring a PR team to put a campaign together for my Tesla Gravity engine (that doesn't exist, but a good marketing campaign will get around that), then I'll run off with the scammed $300 k   

Unfortunately for you they did have a lot of money behind them. VC firm investment to the tune of "up to $1M", and also (IRRC) Bob's personal payout (circa $800k?) when he got booted from his previous company and then sued them for it. If he put that money into Batteriser of course, which smart people don't do that, they use other people's money.

[Galenbo]

Meanwhile, in the UK alone 43 000 tonnes of AA cells alone (let alone other sizes) go to landfill gradually increasing the toxicity of the land and then water table whilst we offer a cheap, everlasting alternative.

As always:
1) Right description of a bad situation
2) Some half-related consumerscience text
3) Push the hidden agenda with the false conclusion

Show me how your product could reduce waste, and doesn't make even more waste.
And please don't start with your (1.5-1.2)/1.2 = xx% more energy claim, because then you're either stupid or a scammer,
and in both situations you deserve the victim status you claim.

[AndyC_772]

If it's environmentally better for a battery to be completely discharged before it's disposed of, I can do that with a piece of wire. No electronics are needed.

[Galenbo]

We have a patent attorney that has read our claims (submitted before USA ones)and Batteroo's claims and states they are practically identical (suspiciously so) and he would love to take them to court over it.

He would like your signature on his document, and then take your money to... heum... something with batteries. 

Guess we're screwed.

Not yet.

[Monkeh]

If it's environmentally better for a battery to be completely discharged before it's disposed of, I can do that with a piece of wire. No electronics are needed.

But you're not doing anything useful like dimly, expensively, and uglily lighting your stairs with it!

[Galenbo]

Private Message:

have the guts or honesty to tell us what your cryptic message of: 
"not screwed"  YET  refers to please?

I have even the guts and honesty to answer the private message here you sent me, witch contained no greeting, no reference and no foreword.
As if typing some text here for you requires "guts and honesty"

You are not screwed yet, because you still aren't catched in the net of the lawyers.

[al brown]

Hard data at end of this final post.

This will be my last post because people (or maybe just one person) are into the nasty phase now and we leave the playground when that happens.

Thanks for all the constructive comments.

Yes, we should have included detailed data, and maybe we will.

For example: Toxins - they are called alkaline cells for a reason, just as lead acid batteries use the word acid. (btw, a car battery can give a reading of 12.7 Volts and have almost no capacity (give very little current) upon a drop test.

We are chemists and physicists - not electronic engineers - we saw the electronics and saw a way of applying it to what we (and solely we, apparently) thought was a good application. We still find the products useful in our homes and all the nay-sayers are saying "dim" based upon what? you haven't got the product so how can you say that? Anyway, we applied it to a sleeve before the USA, (We adjusted the circuits to create two earth connections to make the circuit applicable to an AA cell before Batteroo) then we disregarded it because not enough current was available for battery to go back into original device - digital camera e.g. - hence our LED product.

The usa campaign came out and we were peeved, so we rushed together a crowdfunding campaign - all our research papers were filed away and took a lot of finding - this was all hobby / freetime inventing / research, please remember, before we got canned and our jobs were outsourced . We work on sailing products mostly.

Back to toxins as our last post:

1)potassium hydroxide Health hazard level of 3 (with 4 being maximum) from NFPA 704: Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response
1.1) potassium hydroxide - chemical reactivity hazard level 1 (0 lowest, 4 highest)

2) manganese dioxide, labelled as an oxidizer - will aid combustion even with no oxygen around, Health hazard 1, chemical reactivity 2,  fire hazard 1,

3)zinc - low level toxin until large amounts accumulate.

5) potassium carbonate - health hazard 1

Now multiply everything by billions.

If that enough to stop Galenbo calling us "stupid" or "scammers"?
with " half-related consumerscience text" 
and "Push the hidden agenda with the false conclusion "

"the state of California considers all batteries as hazardous waste when discarded, and has banned the disposal of batteries with other domestic waste" - ref Waste Prevention Information Exchange. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Retrieved 5 September 2012.

"In Europe, battery disposal is controlled by the WEEE Directive and Battery Directive regulations, and as such alkaline batteries must not be thrown in with domestic waste. In the EU, most stores that sell batteries are required by law to accept old batteries for recycling."

Alkaline batteries are not valuable materials, so disposal has a net cost to the party disposing of the material.

In the US, one company shreds and separates the battery case metals, manganese and zinc. Another company mixes batteries in as a feedstock in steel making furnaces, to make low-grade steel such as rebar; the zinc fumes are recovered separately

[FrankBuss]

Hard data at end of this final post.

Not much hard data. We know that batteries are bad in domestic waste. In Germany there were always special containers in shops for collecting empty batteries as long as I can remember. But would be interesting to see some independent reference that batteries are less toxic when drained. A quick search in Google didn't find anything, but I'm not a chemists, just a programmer and a bit electronics engineer, so I might not search for the right keywords.

[LabSpokane]

We are chemists and physicists

Who is "we?"  Please list the credentials of "we" and the granting academic institutions.

[hayatepilot]

From the Batteriser thread:

Unfortunately the same clueless claim that draining a battery to 0.4V will give you 3x longer life than when draining to 1.2V 

If a battery lasts 1.5 to 1.2V = 0.3V and then 1.2 to 0.3 = 0.9 V, that is 3x.

Or if it lasts 1 week in an xbox controller and then 3 weeks non-stop in our device, that is 3x.

There are statistics, statistics and damn lies.

We are chemists and physicists

 
How can you be chemists physicists if you think that a battery discharge curve is linear?
I suggest you watch Dave's batteriser debunk videos....

Greetings

[NF6X]

For example: Toxins - they are called alkaline cells for a reason, just as lead acid batteries use the word acid.

They are called alkaline cells because they use potassium hydroxide, an alkaline, as an electrolyte. It is important to note that the electrolyte is not consumed as the battery discharges. There is as much potassium hydroxide in a discharged alkaline cell as there is in a fresh one.

Back to toxins as our last post:

1)potassium hydroxide Health hazard level of 3 (with 4 being maximum) from NFPA 704: Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response
1.1) potassium hydroxide - chemical reactivity hazard level 1 (0 lowest, 4 highest)

Discharging the battery doesn't expend or convert the potassium hydroxide. This is the most toxic of the materials in an alkaline cell, but discharging a 1.2V cell to 0.3V doesn't reduce the amount of potassium hydroxide present in the cell. Unless the cell is discharged until it leaks, that is, in which case the potassium hydroxide has the opportunity to leak into your stairwell instead of into the landfill.

2) manganese dioxide, labelled as an oxidizer - will aid combustion even with no oxygen around, Health hazard 1, chemical reactivity 2,  fire hazard 1,

Manganese (IV) oxide, which is converted to manganese (III) oxide as the cell is discharged. The latter is much less reactive than the former, but they are both in the same NFPA health code classification.

3)zinc - low level toxin until large amounts accumulate.

And that zinc is converted to zinc oxide as the cell discharges. Zinc oxide has an NFPA health code of 2, vs. the health code of 0 for powdered zinc. In terms of toxicity, the zinc oxide seems to be worse than the original zinc, doesn't it?

5) potassium carbonate - health hazard 1

Potassium carbonate forms after the cell leaks and the electrolyte reacts with carbon dioxide in the air. I suppose that by discharging the cell until it leaks, thus allowing the electrolyte to decompose, its toxicity is reduced. Unfortunately, that also tends to damage the call holder of whatever device the cell is installed in.

I'm failing to understand how the claimed "75% FEWER toxins" number is derived. Can you educate me?

"the state of California considers all batteries as hazardous waste when discarded, and has banned the disposal of batteries with other domestic waste" - ref Waste Prevention Information Exchange. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Retrieved 5 September 2012.

True, but keeping alkaline cells out of the landfill is an independent variable from their state of charge at the time of disposal. Also, for context, please be aware that the phrase "the state of California considers..." isn't very compelling to many of us who live here and get to experience the grand wisdom of the State of California every day. California's considerations are so pessimistic that nearly every business in the state has a placard posted near the front door stating "California Proposition 65 Warning: This area contains one or more chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer." You will find such warnings posted in McDonalds restaurants, because their french fries (what you would call chips, I think) are slightly caramelized. Disneyland posts such a warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)#/media/File:Disneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg

Many of us who are intimately familiar with the State of California hardly apply much weight to what the State of California "knows" or "considers". In particular, the Proposition 65 warnings are so prevalently posted and so vague as to be entirely useless. I am not aware of a single person living here who pays any attention to the warnings, other than making sure they're posted to avoid being levied fines. They certainly don't make anybody I know of reconsider whether to walk into that restaurant, bank, clothing store, etc. At least the NFPA diamond placards are useful to any firefighters who may need to respond to an emergency at a facility containing hazardous materials in enough quantity to require the placard to be posted.

"In Europe, battery disposal is controlled by the WEEE Directive and Battery Directive regulations, and as such alkaline batteries must not be thrown in with domestic waste. In the EU, most stores that sell batteries are required by law to accept old batteries for recycling."

I think that is a good thing. But it is not clear to me how your product impacts the number of spent cells that end up in landfills contrary to law.

Alkaline batteries are not valuable materials, so disposal has a net cost to the party disposing of the material.

That's probably one of the factors leading to them ending up in landfills rather than recycled. I can see how your product results in alkaline cells being discharged more fully before they end up in a landfill, where they will continue to self-discharge at a lower rate. But I don't understand how that relates to your claim of reducing toxicity and slowing the rate of cells ending up in landfills. If everybody thinks that your product is a great idea and rushes out to buy a few dozen, then I can envision a momentary dip in the rate of cells being dumped in landfills. But won't those same cells end up in the same recycling centers or landfills six months later, after they have finished lighting curios and stairwells? It's not as if the product reduces the rate at which new cells are required to power things like XBox controllers.

I can certainly sense your passion for this product, Al, but I don't understand the logic of many of your claims.

[Galenbo]

If that enough to stop Galenbo calling us "stupid" or "scammers"?

No, not even close.
You give a list of names of chemics, in witch I'm no further interested. For the believer/nobeliever game players: I assume they are toxic.
You refused/failed to answer my question, so here it is again:
Show me HOW your product reduces waste. Prove me it doesn't produce MORE waste.

By the way, you also failed comprehensive reading. The "stupid or scammers" was there with a condition: Only if your explanation should start with the false linearity.

[Don Hills]

...

    

That's how debunking should be done, rather than descend to mud wrestling.

[NF6X]

   

That's how debunking should be done, rather than descend to mud wrestling.

Thank you!

[al brown]

At 0.3V an AA cell has 75% FEWER toxins in it than a 1.2V cell.

Al, can you share any references and/or data to support that claim? For that matter, can you list any of the toxins presumably present in an AA cell of any charge state?

Yup, did as you asked. Rather than be gracious and retract your "For that matter, can you list any of the toxins presumably present..." you just did a bit of amateur googling on chemistry.

Your last post that was applauded by a dimwit was wrong in so many ways and no I can't be arsed to expand.

Just cut a 1.5V AA cell in half and then cut a 1.2V AA cell in half and examine the electrolylte and then you will SEE we are right; your knowledge of electrolysis is very limited.

Will "we" post our qualifications and what universities we attended? To  bunch of posters such as this? NO!

We are collecting 75% of all batteries from recycle bins and using them to create lots of useful light - one street lamp currently operational (want that in lumens?  -No, can't be arsed again to respond to unfriendly people) whatever the majority of you nay-sayer posters write.

Ah we interested in money. Nope. Sod it. We don't need it or like it. Will we be doing this again     Nope. The world is full of a majority of twits and we are happy to not participate.

Feel free to state your success stories here? What, you mean you have none and yet you have been stoning us? Be derogatory as you like to whomever you like if that gives you pleasure.

Honestly, animals are nicer than many humans here, one species helping their mates out:


Batteroo, now there is an honest company with a non-existant product - not! Using our IP, but failing to produce something that works. Ours works, has benefits and we gained zilch except a load of criticism from a bunch of supposed experts. Me, I'm quite happy to have poked my nose into YOUR field of expertise and done something useful and beneficial. Can you poke your nose into my field of expertise; nuclear physics and the physics of inorganic chemistry? Would I be as rude to you as you have been in a similar situation. Nope.

So I am as happy as punch. Would I be rude to a person that is derogatory, incorrect and rude? Yep. Your avatar looks like Simon Cowel. Can't be more insulting than that.

[Skimask]

[SL4P]

The OP sounds like a genuine, young, bright soul that has yet to get his fingers burned by reality.
We'd all love our ideas to ake off first time, and some of have succeeded on the second or third attempt - only to be ripped off of our own IP.

So, we put our head down and keep trying.  Your first idea isn't necessarily a failure, it's just not the right time, and you dont have the means to bring it up.
Work on some other ideas, and come back whenever you have some more oartners, money or experience.  It all helps and there's no guarantee of success. ever. So we keep coming back unless it is really obvious were in the wrong train...!

[NF6X]

I've been compared to John Goodman in his Walter Sobchak role before, but this is the first time I know of that I've been mistaken for Simon Cowell.

[Kilrah]

Just cut a 1.5V AA cell in half and then cut a 1.2V AA cell in half and examine the electrolylte and then you will SEE we are right; your knowledge of electrolysis is very limited.

If I opened a battery I wouldn't know what I'm looking at, so I wouldn't be able to comment whether you are right or wrong. Pretty sure that's the same for most of the others in this thread. They however do know about the electronic side of things, and you bet they will comment on that.

Rather than be gracious and retract your "For that matter, can you list any of the toxins presumably present..." you just did a bit of amateur googling on chemistry.

You gave a list of things to someone who doesn't outright have the required knowledge to verify the pertinence of your sayings. They however won't take what you say for granted either, so they did some research with what they could. It happens that what comes out of that does not really match what you claim, which is a perfectly good reason to be skeptical especially given the number of scams around. That doesn't mean they believe straight away that you tried to con them because they are of course aware that a quick search is not worth years of schooling. They're rather begging you for more info and for you to correct their poor attempts at documenting themselves. If you're sure of yourself and want to go forward it's now your job to explain things properly and convince your listeners that your point is correct. If you become defensive or start shouting at them you'll however achieve the opposite and reinforce the idea you actually can't and it's a scam.

And it's not just valid for here, you'll have to go through that process with pretty much anyone who's susceptible to support your project since they also won't be specialists in your field. Instead of insulting people take this thread as a benchmark, it's a bit more harsh than IRL because internet forums, but still representative of the principles. Yep the world is harsh, people won't just believe what you say, and you'll have to fight to make your place. If you can't answer the questions you're asked here and do it calmly you're not ready to go ahead with your idea.

throwing away 43 000 tonnes of AA cells in UK alone and 75% of them are at 1.2 V (we empried a recycle bin) and some are at 1.5 V

Firstly, like Batteroo you claim a cell that is at 1.2V has a ton of energy left, granted you "only" mention 3x instead of their 8x, but in the end it's just as wrong. See the other thread.
Then cells that are thrown away at 1.5V end up in the bin either because you don't know what state they're in, by mistake, because you need a set that's all in the same condition... but your device won't prevent that, whoever would think/want to use that cell wouldn't need your device to do so, they'd just plug it on the battery checker, see it's good and use it.

So to me, very basic rundown compared to the Batteriser:

Better than them:
- Yours indeed seems like a better use for such a device

Same level as them:
- You go ahead with claims that are either dubious/wrong/badly worded e.g. the 3x longer (than what? What does that amount to in practice?) and the toxicity
- You omit important details (what's the idle consumption of your thing?)
- You ignore other solutions to some of the problems (recycling)

Worse than them:
- Awful communication, how do you want anyone to feel like they're looking at something serious when they see your videos/website?
- You go aggressive on people who could believe you if you helped them to. Nobody will help you if you're not nice with them. One of the main reasons B or other dubious/scammy things like Skarp can run their thing is they'll take any kind of abuse and always respond in a friendly "yeah we know, everything is alright, if there's a problem we'll fix it" i.e. they manage to make people confident. You're outright slapping them if they don't believe what you say without question.
- Your product's usefulness is questionable. I mean, I have a flashlight, I've put fresh batteries in it about 2 years ago, they're still good. That's how much I use a flashlight. Even if I could finish off my batteries in a flashlight I'd have a 10kg box of "nearly empty" batteries before I'd have used one in the flashlight with your device. I won't store used batteries for that. Especially given it will for sure draw an idle current, making sure my flashlight is unuseable when I need it. So I'll continue recycling my batteries and putting fresh ones in my flashlight.