Pretty sure there is enough information out there for someone to at least come up with their own version of it.
Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken. Or would you copy a non working circuit for profit? I forgot, audiophoolery is working [emoji14]alm:
Pretty sure there is enough information out there for someone to at least come up with their own version of it.
Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken. Or would you copy a non working circuit for profit? I forgot, audiophoolery is working [emoji14]alm:Let's make a IGG campaign! I
Pretty sure there is enough information out there for someone to at least come up with their own version of it.
Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken. Or would you copy a non working circuit for profit? I forgot, audiophoolery is working [emoji14]alm:Let's make a IGG campaign! I
Let's make a monkey which will run 800% longer with the Batteriser, and then start selling those monkeys to all Batteriser buyers! $$$$$
I'm pretty shocked that no Chinese knockoffs of this have appeared on ebay or Alibaba yet
Don't worry to much about that, they will be there
Which one will deliver first? Batteriser or the Chinese knockoffs?
Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken.
The Chinese clone makers may be many things but they are rarely stupid.
I'm surprised this one hasn't been deleted yet:
I'm pretty shocked that no Chinese knockoffs of this have appeared on ebay or Alibaba yet
You can't copy something not existing yet
But what happens when a device needs a certain current to function? They are basically saying the Batteriser acts like a "power supply" voltage source in that it keeps a constant minimal voltage while somehow being able to supply whatever variation in current is demanded by the product without any dip in voltage. Assuming it could magically isolate the device and battery so that current draws don't affect battery voltage, where is the extra "energy" coming from?
The Batteriser is tiny, where is it storing a current source that it can release at will whenever the device demands it?
Bingo.
You canna change the laws of physics captain.
But what happens when a device needs a certain current to function? They are basically saying the Batteriser acts like a "power supply" voltage source in that it keeps a constant minimal voltage while somehow being able to supply whatever variation in current is demanded by the product without any dip in voltage. Assuming it could magically isolate the device and battery so that current draws don't affect battery voltage, where is the extra "energy" coming from?
The Batteriser is tiny, where is it storing a current source that it can release at will whenever the device demands it?
Bingo.
You canna change the laws of physics captain.
What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?
I watched the debunk video and appreciate it's spirit; Yet, I didn't see where the limits of using a variable DC supply to model battery life performance were addressed etc.
With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.
For example, the debunk video concludes that most devices can run rechargeable batteries at 1.2V; Local experience is different. I see consumers tending to buy things requiring alkaline batteries that quit at 1.2V; Rechargeables don't work well with them. For example, I might get 10 minutes using rechargeables with Maglite LED flashlights or digital equipment such as cameras.
Note: Newer Maglite LED models may not be a good example. They seem to have a joule thief built into system, so the 1.2V limit may not exist anymore --I don't have D rechargeables handy to confirm; Based on my DMM readings of recycling used batteries, newer Maglites seem to get more energy out of batteries than before; The used batteries I now collect have less capacity.
What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?
I watched the debunk video and appreciate it's spirit; Yet, I didn't see where the limits of using a variable DC supply to model battery life performance were addressed etc.
With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.
For example, the debunk video concludes that most devices can run rechargeable batteries at 1.2V; Local experience is different. I see consumers tending to buy things requiring alkaline batteries that quit at 1.2V; Rechargeables don't work well with them. For example, I might get 10 minutes using rechargeables with Maglite LED flashlights or digital equipment such as cameras.
Note: Newer Maglite LED models may not be a good example. They seem to have a joule thief built into system, so the 1.2V limit may not exist anymore --I don't have D rechargeables handy to confirm; Based on my DMM readings of recycling used batteries, newer Maglites seem to get more energy out of batteries than before; The used batteries I now collect have less capacity.
I'm pretty shocked that no Chinese knockoffs of this have appeared on ebay or Alibaba yet
Don't worry to much about that, they will be there
Which one will deliver first? Batteriser or the Chinese knockoffs?...Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken.
Precisely... Why would you bother to clone a product which cannot work, a product where the very concept itself is fundamentally flawed?
The Chinese clone makers may be many things but they are rarely stupid.
Though, as I've said before, I suppose a properly executed one designed to boost rechargeables to 1.5v volts but not over-discharge them could potentially be a useful product but only in a small number of devices.
What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?
But it's not....
I don't know what is ambiguous abot them stating 80% that the energy of a battery is unused or 800% more life which clearly refers to any single application. Dave has explained numerous times how using a benchtop power supply for closed circuit voltage is correct. Feel free to cite what problems there are in using a benchtop power supply to determine cutoff voltage.
Nearly any decently designed device has a boost converter in in it. No well designed digital camera works poorly with rechargeable batteries. It has been years since I have had a device that has a particularly high cut off voltage. I think the last, was a really old cordless mouse.
I was going to suggest, for an LED light to not have a boost converter in it would be a pretty poor design.
What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?But it's not....AFAICT, that's hearsay until confirmed.
I don't know what is ambiguous abot them stating 80% that the energy of a battery is unused or 800% more life which clearly refers to any single application. Dave has explained numerous times how using a benchtop power supply for closed circuit voltage is correct. Feel free to cite what problems there are in using a benchtop power supply to determine cutoff voltage.For purposes of a battery powered device, a benchtop power supply supplies essentially limitless current. Batteries have performance limits on their current output.
Sadly, many consumer electronics products are not designed for optimal battery performance.
What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?
I watched the debunk video and appreciate it's spirit; Yet, I didn't see where the limits of using a variable DC supply to model battery life performance were addressed etc.
With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.
For example, the debunk video concludes that most devices can run rechargeable batteries at 1.2V; Local experience is different. I see consumers tending to buy things requiring alkaline batteries that quit at 1.2V; Rechargeables don't work well with them. For example, I might get 10 minutes using rechargeables with Maglite LED flashlights or digital equipment such as cameras.
Note: Newer Maglite LED models may not be a good example. They seem to have a joule thief built into system, so the 1.2V limit may not exist anymore --I don't have D rechargeables handy to confirm; Based on my DMM readings of recycling used batteries, newer Maglites seem to get more energy out of batteries than before; The used batteries I now collect have less capacity.
Is this a troll?
Is this a troll?
tekbasse is a free energy/overunity aficionado.
Is this a troll?
You can make your own conclusion... link
With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.
joule thief
LOL, got to love labels.
It is confirmed, time and time again, by Batteroo in all their marketing, interviews, patents, etc.
It is a simply a DC-DC boost converter.
It is confirmed, time and time again, by Batteroo in all their marketing, interviews, patents, etc.
It is a simply a DC-DC boost converter.
Hmmm patents....Looks like they don't have any granted in the US/EU. The patent examiner examining their US application found possible prior (now active) art about a month ago [US2010/0136374 - assigned to Samsung as US9147864 B2 (examiner believes obvious modification in view of US6118248 and US4702975)]. So to me it appears that even if they had everything ready to go with UL approval and in boxes, they can't sanely ship units in the US/EU until the patent clears, unless they want to risk possible infringement (and actually I think they may be at risk even if they don't ship due to presales). From what I can tell, Batteroos patent claims are to be rejected unless Batteroo has a good argument, Batteroos arguments were sent about a week and a half ago... so will see
USPTO public PAIR system http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Select "application number" and enter "14/542313"
Click "image file wrapper" tab
Hmmm patents....Looks like they don't have any granted in the US/EU. The patent examiner examining their US application found possible prior (now active) art about a month ago [US2010/0136374 - assigned to Samsung as US9147864 B2 (examiner believes obvious modification in view of US6118248 and US4702975)]. So to me it appears that even if they had everything ready to go with UL approval and in boxes, they can't sanely ship units in the US/EU until the patent clears, unless they want to risk possible infringement (and actually I think they may be at risk even if they don't ship due to presales). From what I can tell, Batteroos patent claims are to be rejected unless Batteroo has a good argument, Batteroos arguments were sent about a week and a half ago... so will see
USPTO public PAIR system http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Select "application number" and enter "14/542313"
Click "image file wrapper" tab
I doubt that's the only reason for the delay though.