EDN put out another article about batteriser today: http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/brians-brain/4440366/The-Batteriser--defenders-and-detractors
The article says nothing new unfortunately and just argues the same points that have been debunked since the beginning, proof of which is found in this very long thread.
Question 1: Their answer - most devices don't have boost circuits, so that is why Batteriser is useful. My argument: They don't mention that even without boost circuits these devices may run down to a very low cutoff voltage, so the benefit of the Batteriser is limited... but they do state the max output is 1.3 A now.
Question 2: Their answer - some circular argument about how devices have boost circuits in them, therefore there is obviously a use to it... so that validates the benefit of a Batteriser, otherwise why would most devices use a boost circuit? My argument: Again, nobody is arguing that a boost circuit can or cannot be beneficial for certain devices. It is very device dependent and engineered in there for a reason, and turned on during certain thresholds (not running all the time like Batteriser)... Although we don't know what Batteriser does, it may indeed have a cutoff that triggers the boosting... But as a previous user said in this thread, every device has a different cutoff and so how would the Batteriser be "set" to know every single device out there and use the appropriate cutoff? Only a device engineered with a preset cutoff level booster would work optimally.
They also bring up Zinniker's table showing % of batteries in garbage that have certain % capacity left.... As explained a few pages ago, this is a cumulative plot and you must carefully understand what the numbers mean and read Zinniker's full article to get all the nuances involved.
Question 3: Their answer - Batteriser is more cost-effective and cheaper batteries have less energy than more expensive batteries. My argument: The problem with this argument is, even if the Batteriser cost $0.00.... Would it not be using up my batteries faster due to the efficiency loss? We have already seen examples on this thread showing boost converter versus non-boost and performance is actually worse due to inefficiencies in the booster.
Question 4: Their answer - people will still use disposable batteries and it is ending up in landfills and being a huge waste. Point well taken. My argument: But Batteriser does not seem to be the answer.... It will only add to the pollution. First, the Batteriser manufacturing itself. Second, the fact that if it actually degrades time of the battery, will result in more batteries being used and possibly also leaking. Third, if they created a rechargeable battery with a boost converter in it, it would theoretically work in more devices and actually be reusable although I figure it wouldn't have as long as life in the device as an alkaline, at least you could use it in those devices that don't like rechargeables due to the lower voltage.
Question 5: Their answer - Same thing they are saying before about tapping last bit of energy from battery, and also Garmin GPS test mentioned again which has been thoroughly debunked by multiple people. My argument: I have none. They are clearly and utterly sticking to their Garmin GPS setup and saying they will add more "side by side" comparison tests.... Yes, as soon as they find another device that they can arbitrarily decide on a "failure" mode that makes the Batteriser look like it is giving way longer performance life.
BOTTOM LINE:
This huge thread has all the answers in it, to all of the above questions, with actual mathematical and scientific arguments. Batteroo fundamentally disagrees with it, and continue to recite the same thing. You can blow huge holes into all of their answers. It is a pointless exercise to debate this anymore with Batteroo. What we need is to wait and see what they DELIVER. Fortunately it is only a few months away.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
