Yep, a very simple test that can be done by average Joe/Jane. Note the devices and times, and we'll get a nice list everybody should be able to understand.
<device> <runtime of batteries> <additional runtime with Batteroo> <gain>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... UP TO 8x ..
And Bob does have a device that lasts 8x longer - the Garmin GPS. This performance was verified by Underwriters Laboratory, a very trustworthy organization.
(The fact that UL didn't sign the report, you can't look it up on their web site and they placed conditions on usage doesn't matter...the report is real!)
I have a spreadsheet for that:
I have a spreadsheet for that:KISS Of course, the EE likes to have more data points, but this is for non-EEs. In case more IGG backers get their Batteroos, we should keep the test as simple as possible to give them some motivation to participate. We shouldn't ask for too much. If they understand the test, they'll help. They also want to verify if the sleeves are working as promised. As more devices are tested as better the statistical value becomes. When forum members get Batteroos, we'll get the "proper" data.
So, are you suggesting (or implying) that IF it lasts 1.2x longer, that it meets the claim?
How can my tests get any simpler?
It is a long time ago now but IIRC that 8x or 800% claim was regarding batteries people throw out with most capacity remaining. Again IIRC they claimed to have surveyed a range of batteries people discard and some still had most of their energy remaining. Yes they worded things a bit cheekily but I don't recall they claimed they would turn 1 battery into 8. Which is how that particular claim has morphed.
How can my tests get any simpler?
By performing just the fresh-battery-until-dead and dead-battery-with-batteroo tests, which require just one set of batteries.
Their maths (or use of concise English) hasn't gotten any better since they confused 500% with 800%; their website now headlines with "tap into 80% more energy with Batteroo" which would only extend the battery life by 180%. While at the same time they indirectly suggest 500% with their original claim that only 20% of battery capacity is normally used and Batteroo will extract the remaining. Confused? Yep.
But of course, saying that Batteroo "lets you instantly tap into the 80% of energy that is usually thrown away." is not the same a saying it can extract all of it.
Their maths (or use of concise English) hasn't gotten any better since they confused 500% with 800%; their website now headlines with "tap into 80% more energy with Batteroo" which would only extend the battery life by 180%. While at the same time they indirectly suggest 500% with their original claim that only 20% of battery capacity is normally used and Batteroo will extract the remaining. Confused? Yep.
But of course, saying that Batteroo "lets you instantly tap into the 80% of energy that is usually thrown away." is not the same a saying it can extract all of it.
Claiming that only 20% of the battery capacity is normally used, and one can tap into the 80% of the energy that is usually thrown away cannot mean anything else than this:
- If a device runs for 1 hour with the fresh batteries and then stops working, there should be still energy left for 4 hours, which can be tapped into with the Batteriser.
- In other words, if a device would normally run 1 hour with fresh batteries, the device should run 5 hours with the Batteriser.
That is their claim.
Could someone explain me what Bob is trying to say in the video time 8:14 - 9:40:
https://youtu.be/622uCZ_pE0w?t=494
Yes, by applying a constant current of 100mA, we will get the red line displaying the battery voltage as a function of time. But then he draws the rectangular and says something that doesn't make any sense at all. That Bob's misunderstanding is the reason why he thinks that the Batteriser will work, and that is the reason why the Batteriser will fail. He even got it documented very nicely.
Again IIRC they claimed to have surveyed a range of batteries people discard and some still had most of their energy remaining.
I have a clock that stops working when the battery voltage gets below about 1.25 V.
So, are you suggesting (or implying) that IF it lasts 1.2x longer, that it meets the claim?
I have a clock that stops working when the battery voltage gets below about 1.25 V. I think this would be the perfect application for the Batteriser. A voltage sensitive device with a very low current draw and a high cut-off voltage.
Sure.... unless the quiescent current of a Batteriser would drain the battery first.