Every battery powered tool I have purchased in the last 8 to 10 years has had Li-ion.
QuoteEvery battery powered tool I have purchased in the last 8 to 10 years has had Li-ion.
Not everyone is lucky as you. My tools are not Li-ion
I haven't seen NiCd in power tools for years.
Every battery powered tool I have purchased in the last 8 to 10 years has had Li-ion.
As much as I hate to feed the trolls.....Wrong as usual.
Muppets are wrong a lot.
UL did the test and of course you will say the test is rigged so UL ran a rigged test.
Grow up and accept you are wrong sometimes. It is not a scam, you lose.
The UL did the tests on the Batteriser using the test jig and methodology supplied by Batteroo and reported the results.
If the test was completely invalid (which I personally believe it was) that's not the UL's fault. They did exactly what they were asked to and supplied a (humourous) report to that effect. There is absolutely no scientific data provided in that report, nor has there been any credible scientific evidence or any valid data at all supplied by Bateroo regarding the Batteriser. We're still patiently waiting.
As for who's wrong or needs to grow up, I think everyone with any kind of professionalism and credibility in this industry will find that information to be glaringly self-evident...
Being from the Netherlands, I assumed "standard rechargable " to mean NiCd.In India standard AA/AAA rechargeable means NiMH. NiCd's are for "cordless phones".you won't find NiCd commonly in canada either, so rechargeable would mean NiMH here too.Based on my interaction with my relatives that stay in the US I have to clearly differentiate NiMH from rechargeable's since they consider rechargeable = rechargeable Alkaline.I've yet to see rechargeable Alkaline. Although they seem to exist according to Wikipedia, for sure they are not to be considered as standard type of rechargeables. Good luck to even finding a charger which officially supports them.QuoteBeing from the Netherlands, I assumed "standard rechargable " to mean NiCd.Not for last 10 years, NiCd batteries are relic of the past. The vast majority of rechargeable AA batteries are NiMh.
What?! Are you guys all nuts?
- NiCd are readily available in Canada just like NiMH, though most of the super-expensive retail brands like Duracell and Energizer you will normally find NiMH being pushed by the retail stores because they can charge more for that bit of extra capacity and they are easier to build with lower self-discharge characteristics which is important for low-drain devices like a remote control. NiCd is far superior for heavy cycle heavy loads and huge multi-cell packs of them are even used in some off-grid or battery backup inverter setups.
snip
The cells in all the ones I have are made by Panasonic.
snip
Wrong as usual.
Muppets are wrong a lot.
UL did the test and of course you will say the test is rigged so UL ran a rigged test.
Grow up and accept you are wrong sometimes. It is not a scam, you lose.
Wrong as usual.
Muppets are wrong a lot.
UL did the test and of course you will say the test is rigged so UL ran a rigged test.
Grow up and accept you are wrong sometimes. It is not a scam, you lose.
We all know who is he. And judging by his level of (im)maturity and use of the English language, I'd say he's no older than 16.
I've yet to see rechargeable Alkaline. Although they seem to exist according to Wikipedia, for sure they are not to be considered as standard type of rechargeables. Good luck to even finding a charger which officially supports them.
Till a few years back the only rechargeable's Duracell and Energizer were selling were rechargeable Alkalines in the US. "NiMH" was generally considered Japanese Technology. Anyway this discussion got me spending some more time online and discovering that NiCd actually use/used an alkaline electrolyte. Any battery chemistry experts her to verify this?
Rayovac is the only major brand that has, and they don't seem to sell them in the US.
Wrong as usual.
Muppets are wrong a lot.
UL did the test and of course you will say the test is rigged so UL ran a rigged test.
Grow up and accept you are wrong sometimes. It is not a scam, you lose.
We all know who is he. And judging by his level of (im)maturity and use of the English language, I'd say he's no older than 16.
Hi McCarthy and the group,
You asked:
So why does Batteriser claim "Tap into 80%" if there is only 33% in average left?
Also keep in mind: this study is 13 years old. Today even more devices have a booster build in. Hence these days the amount left in batteries is probably less than 25%. That’s far away from 80%.
The Batteriser guys took the top two lines which says that 30% of the batteries discarded had 84% of the energy left.
They make the claim that 100% of the energy could be extracted from these batteries using the Batteriser. Since only 16% of the energy was extracted the devices have the potential to last 84/16 x longer 5x longer.
If you take only the top line you get 93/7 time longer 13x longer.
This proposition is flawed. It assumes that the ONLY reason that the batteries were discarded is because they no longer worked in a product.
I have discarded batteries because:
1) they are old
2) I am putting some thing away for storage and I don't want them to leak
3) Some thing breaks and I try new batteries etc....
Jay_Diddy_B
^ Did you pick your forum name based on prior guilt from throwing away all those mostly full batteries...
The 'full' UL report is totally logical. It's states very very clear that it did a measurement that is for 100% provided by batteriser, and whatever the results were, it had nothing to do with what UL normally stands for. This UL-report is just a disclaimer made by UL, with a warning that Batteroo is not allowed to associate the UL logo with their products.
Please guys did anyone actually read the articles provided by Batteriser?
By my reading, they are in breach of this by posting the single page by itself and using the UL name for promotional advertising on their main page.
Please guys did anyone actually read the articles provided by Batteriser?Yep. We read it very carefully. And this is NOT a valid test report.
A very short and incomplete list of things lacking in this "test report" :
I'd like to read the mentioned study from the "International Battery Recycling Conference". Please provide me with a link or a copy.
Here is a link to the 2003 Zinniker article with the figures quoted 42 minutes into the Batteroo's "Batteriser - Full length Batteriser explanation video". Zinniker is a bit more specific than Batteroo regarding the applied testing conditions: http://www2.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~rolfz/batak/ICBR2003_Zinniker.pdf
I havent read all the pages of the Zinniker article, I must confess.
BTW: a "LR6" battery = an alkaline "AA" battery
Wrong as usual.
Muppets are wrong a lot.
UL did the test and of course you will say the test is rigged so UL ran a rigged test.
Grow up and accept you are wrong sometimes. It is not a scam, you lose.