I have some more data!
It's hilarious how the one with the boost converters (simulating batterisers) gets the shortest time. That's using inductors that wouldn't fit into the batteriser. If they don't put some disclaimers in their instructions manual that says "only use batteriser AFTER your product stops working, else you'll get reduced battery life.", I would be very surprised.
I'm also testing rechargable 2500 mAh nimh batteries at the moment, but couldn't wait until it's finished to put the other results into a combined graph.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, to keep the lines "thinner", I added a pretty aggressive weighted rolling average so you can tell the lines apart better. The "noise" made the lines appear really thick, which made it hard to tell apart when they're near each other.
Link to full resolution image:
PS: did someone already contact the Garmin CEO? Support might not care about it, but such a video is really bad publicity for their device and the Garmin CEO might be interested in it.
If I was a Garmin CEO watching that video I'd be thinking, "Garmin brand GPS is being featured in a Youtube video! Yay!"
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.Agreed they are breaking the law, and bringing their own evidence. But they probably know exactly how far they can stretch this. And until UL summons them explicitly to remove the UL logo from their website within x days they'll just leave it there. Well that's my guess.
"UL LLC authorizes the above named company
to reproduce this Report provided it is reproduced in its entirety. The name, Brand or Marks of
UL LLC cannot be used in any packaging, advertising, promotion or marketing relating to the
data in this Report, without UL's prior written permission."
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.
Then I don't think you read the first 3 words and the last 5 words. Now I think the whole report is nothing more than a forgery, so this is moot, but technically this "letter" would constitute written permission from UL (assuming it's real) to use ONLY the report, in its entirety.
Per your request, project 4787059213 was opened, in accordance with your requested test protocol.
UL LLC did not select the samples, determine whether the samples were representative of production samples, witness the production of the test samples, nor were we provided with information relative to the formulation or identification of component materials used in the test samples. The test results apply only to the actual samples tested.
The issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classification or Recognition by UL LLC
QuoteThe issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classification or Recognition by UL LLCThen you know that UL did not do a performance test, so we got that confirmed now.
They (UL) just did a meaningless contract test job, and wrote down the result on little more than a post-it note.
And now these Batteroo guys are totally misusing the UL-notes to imply conformation of their ridicules claim.
Which part of that report says "independent testing" to anybody?
Of course their remedy will probably be a written 'cease and desist' letter which Batteriser can safely ignore for a month or two before complying with it.
It seems the Batteriser CEO is going to claim in this newspaper article that I'm working for Duracell
Source: EEVblog #176 - Lithium Ion/Polymer Battery Charging Tutorial
"[...about MjMH rechargeble AA and AAA cells...]
they are a bit of a pain in the butt: they all have chemistry [...]"
I have been a fly on this wall for long enough. I am enjoying this thread a lot and thought I would put in my 2 cents.
I decided to look into other battery related articles written by Hannah Francis, and found one here:
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/this-yoke-and-shell-battery-could-charge-your-phone-in-six-minutes-20150811-gix2vz#comments
It is about battery technology that could allow an iPhone battery to be fully charged within 6 minutes. Theory is nice, but ZERO math was applied to this article. The last person to comment on the article did some REAL math revealing the current involved in charging a battery that fast. It may be possible, but far from practical.
And a reminder to batteriser...
Based on Hannah's writing style of the above linked article, I would expect her to side with new technology along with little technical fact checking (if any).
The trouble is 99% of you "engineers", with your heads in the clouds and up your asses at the same time, never turned a wrench and did anything in the real world. Although I have scholastic aptitude in the upper 1% in mathematics as proven by my name listed in Who's Who, I actually am a person that gets down and dirty in the practical application . I know many times "engineers can be wrong and the joke "trust me, I an engineer" came into being for a reason. You have no concern about scammers or else you'd be calling out the liars who kill people with chemo 'treating' cancer, "Doctor". I suggest that if this issue bothers you so much, perhaps you need a prescription for lithium.
I strongly doubt he is in the Who's Who, or the credibility of this list is no more
Just read that on the sy-ynergy-77 channel comments from the man himself:QuoteThe trouble is 99% of you "engineers", with your heads in the clouds and up your asses at the same time, never turned a wrench and did anything in the real world. Although I have scholastic aptitude in the upper 1% in mathematics as proven by my name listed in Who's Who, I actually am a person that gets down and dirty in the practical application . I know many times "engineers can be wrong and the joke "trust me, I an engineer" came into being for a reason. You have no concern about scammers or else you'd be calling out the liars who kill people with chemo 'treating' cancer, "Doctor". I suggest that if this issue bothers you so much, perhaps you need a prescription for lithium.