Author Topic: The real 'batteriser'  (Read 15222 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7204
  • Country: gb
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2015, 08:38:08 am »
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!
 

Offline Galenbo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: be
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2015, 11:52:09 am »
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.

« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 11:55:56 am by Galenbo »
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat.
 

Offline al brown

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 20
  • Country: 00
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2015, 01:57:56 pm »
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
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 02:07:44 pm by al brown »
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2015, 02:10:36 pm »
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.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Electronics, hiking, retro-computing, electronic music etc.: https://www.youtube.com/c/FrankBussProgrammer
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2015, 03:32:49 pm »
Quote
We are chemists and physicists

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

Offline hayatepilot

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 263
  • Country: ch
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2015, 03:48:45 pm »
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  :palm:

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.

Quote
We are chemists and physicists

 :-DD
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
 

Offline NF6X

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: us
    • Mark's Green Pages
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2015, 03:58:45 pm »
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.
 

Offline Galenbo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: be
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2015, 06:33:55 pm »
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.
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat.
 

Offline Don Hills

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 159
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2015, 08:26:28 pm »
...

 :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

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

Offline NF6X

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: us
    • Mark's Green Pages
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2015, 10:43:13 pm »
:clap:  :clap:  :clap:

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

Thank you!
 

Offline al brown

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 20
  • Country: 00
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2016, 02:06:41 am »
Quote from: BATTERY SQUEEZE Indiegogo campaign page
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  |O   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.
 

Offline Skimask

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1433
  • Country: us
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2016, 04:57:24 am »
I didn't take it apart.
I turned it on.

The only stupid question is, well, most of them...

Save a fuse...Blow an electrician.
 

Offline SL4P

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2178
  • Country: au
  • There's more value if you figure it out yourself!
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2016, 06:35:01 am »
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...!
Don't ask a question if you aren't willing to listen to the answer.
 

Offline NF6X

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: us
    • Mark's Green Pages
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2016, 07:58:52 am »
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.
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1852
  • Country: ch
Re: The real 'batteriser'
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2016, 12:58:24 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 01:10:13 pm by Kilrah »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf