# Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke & Mirrors?



## Ken_McE (Jun 2, 2015)

An electrical engineer by the name of Bob Roohparvar is coming out with what he states is an alkaline battery helper. It is a thin stainless sleeve that slips over the battery and put some circuitry between the battery and the load. He says it boosts voltage so the battery will work 8x longer in voltage sensitive devices.

I'm not quite sure if it should work as described or not. 

http://comingsoon-tech.com/batteriser

http://www.macworld.com/article/292...e-battery-life-by-800-percent.html#tk.rss_all

Patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20120121943


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 2, 2015)

If a device absolutely requires 1.5v (or higher) to operate, then sure, I guess a boost circuit would help a lot to keep the device operating when the alkaline cell drops below 1.5v. Since an alkaline cell's voltage falls off close to linear between 1.6v and 1.0v, then most of the time the cell is below 1.5v.

But I would never buy a device that only worked on fresh alkaline cells. I use Eneloops for almost everything, and so my devices must work with 1.2v cells. In my case, such a gadget would be useless.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jun 2, 2015)

My questions is i find battery`s are tight in an lot of devices especially nimh, so with this battery cover/booster will it still fit.

I would like to see the discharge curve and see how long it stays at 1.5v.

John.


----------



## RetroTechie (Jun 2, 2015)

There's a *BOATLOAD* of issues with this, and site makes several inaccurate claims:


If your device is designed for 1.5V batteries, but stops operating already at 1.3V, it is simply crap. Personally, I avoid buying crap. And in the rare chance I buy crap, I quickly tire of it and stop _using_ that crap. 
Perhaps some dumb people throw out batteries at 1.3V. But most people I know, have enough common sense to reuse batteries from high-drain devices in low-drain devices, until they're _really_ depleted. Which makes that "80% remaining energy" claim irrelevant. 
"80% remaining" vs. "last 8x longer". :duh2: Maybe they should ask their kids to double check the math.  
Put a sleeve over the batteries (which makes it both longer & thicker), and it'll fit everywhere those batteries fit before. Yeah sure... 
Voltage boosting isn't 100% efficient, so energy is wasted in the conversion. 
DC-DC conversion is notoriously inefficient at the low voltages talked about here. 
If voltage is boosted to 1.5V, that means device is running at 1.5V until battery is depleted. Meaning device likely draws more current vs. a situation where voltage is below 1.5V a good part of the total time until drained. Quite a few devices will draw less current at a lower voltage, operate fine until some minimal voltage, and thus be increasingly energy-efficient until that minimum voltage is hit. 
In a 4-cell device, you'd put in 4x [battery + booster circuit from say, 1.1V -> 1.5V] ? 4x 1.1V bare cell + a single booster circuit from 4.4V -> 6V would be much more efficient. Best place for that booster circuit would be in the battery-using device itself. If done that way, you'd have a device operating down to 1.1V cell voltage. See point above about not buying crap. 
Boost circuit will have some power drain if device is not used, similar to protection circuits on Li-ion cells. In a low-drain device, that could significantly shorten the batteries' lifespan. 
"Making disposable batteries last longer, leading to less environmental waste". Okay 1st part of that sentence isn't a bad thing, but if 2nd part is the goal: rechargeable batteries? :laughing: 

I could probably go on, but the above list is long enough for me to claim:

*SNAKE OIL*

Read: it'll be expensive...


----------



## MidnightDistortions (Jun 2, 2015)

Yeah i'm not sure why anyone would bother with this, it seems better but does have some major flaws like being able to get it into the device you are trying to use it in but if you are trying to get more out of an alkaline cell you might as well go for rechargeables.


----------



## cland72 (Jun 2, 2015)

This could be HUGE for your average consumer with average products. Think of a R/C car - it would keep the motor running at full speed, instead of being "direct driven" as the voltage drops.

A lot of users on this forum often tend to bad mouth stuff that isn't built/designed the way a flashaholic thinks it should. I look at it this way: if it could be used by millions of people to get more juice out of their alkalines, then perhaps it has a valid place in society. I know it isn't as good as Eneloops, and it may not fit in some devices, but think of how this could change things in third world countries that don't have reliable power grids, and people rely on AA batteries for nearly everything. This could be a game changer, from that perspective.

Also, EVERYONE loves the buck/boost driver on the Surefire L1 - this is basically the same thing.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 2, 2015)

cland72 said:


> This could be HUGE for your average consumer with average products. Think of a R/C car - it would keep the motor running at full speed, instead of being "direct driven" as the voltage drops.



You're assuming that the battery could still provide the necessary current using this boost gadget.

If so, I'd be more interested in using it with NiMH cells instead of alkaline cells. That way, 1.2v rechargeables could be used in R/C stuff and provide the full 1.5v necessary for maximum power.

I'm skeptical it would be able to provide the necessary current.


----------



## MidnightDistortions (Jun 2, 2015)

Well that is where it would be better to go with rechargeables. That energy has to come from somewhere and the only source is the alkaline cell. If anything you'll probably only get a 5% boost from an alkaline cell but ultimately the voltage will only go down further due to the nature of alkaline technology. Would be far more effective using a NiMh cell that already provides excellent amps.


----------



## cland72 (Jun 2, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> You're assuming that the battery could still provide the necessary current using this boost gadget.
> 
> If so, I'd be more interested in using it with NiMH cells instead of alkaline cells. That way, 1.2v rechargeables could be used in R/C stuff and provide the full 1.5v necessary for maximum power.
> 
> I'm skeptical it would be able to provide the necessary current.



Valid point, but in low-draw devices this thing could work miracles.


----------



## RetroTechie (Jun 2, 2015)

MidnightDistortions said:


> If anything you'll probably only get a 5% boost from an alkaline cell but ultimately the voltage will only go down further due to the nature of alkaline technology.


The output voltage would be whatever this boost circuit puts it at. As the battery voltage drops, current draw from the battery increases to keep up with the power requirement, for as long as the battery is able to deliver that power. After which input and output voltage will _both_ drop & it'll be lights out quickly.

But if you have a portable radio that stops working when its AA batteries hit 1.3V, then that portable radio is the problem not that 1.3V / cell. And fix is doing something with that radio, not doing something to the batteries you put in it. A properly designed device should drain AA batteries until they're in 0.9~1.1V range. At which point both alkalines and NiMH's are pretty much drained. Perhaps 1.1V if device depends on the higher voltage, or it wants to go easy on NiMH's where used. Perhaps even below 0.9V if it's not designed for NiMH's and can suck the last bits of juice from disposable batteries.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jun 2, 2015)

Virtually everything works with rechargeable battery`s now, it`s eco friendly.

A bit off topic, In the UK, it is illegal to sell a vaculme cleaner over 1400watts, and in a couple of years that is going down to 700-800watts, so manufactures are forced to produce more efficient design`s rather than thowing more and more watts at it to improve the suction.

John


----------



## Timothybil (Jun 2, 2015)

One of the Laws of Thermodynamics says 'You can't get something for nothing!'. I can get reliable alkaline AA cells for roughly 25 cents if I buy 24 or 36 at a time. How much is this sleeve going to cost me? Is it something I can add or do I have to pay someone to add it? And if I have to buy it preinstalled, then how is it eco-friendly if I throw away (recycle) the circuit after a single use? 

Besides, if it is really a low drain application, why not stick a cheap Carbon Zinc cell into it. Its about all they are good for anyway. While I was writing this I had a vision of the loud groan coming from my eight cell EA8 loaded with carbon zinc AAs when I click on the Turbo mode. Should be good for about ten seconds, then the light would probably implode and disappear forever!


----------



## MidnightDistortions (Jun 2, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> The output voltage would be whatever this boost circuit puts it at. As the battery voltage drops, current draw from the battery increases to keep up with the power requirement, for as long as the battery is able to deliver that power. After which input and output voltage will _both_ drop & it'll be lights out quickly.
> 
> But if you have a portable radio that stops working when its AA batteries hit 1.3V, then that portable radio is the problem not that 1.3V / cell. And fix is doing something with that radio, not doing something to the batteries you put in it. A properly designed device should drain AA batteries until they're in 0.9~1.1V range. At which point both alkalines and NiMH's are pretty much drained. Perhaps 1.1V if device depends on the higher voltage, or it wants to go easy on NiMH's where used. Perhaps even below 0.9V if it's not designed for NiMH's and can suck the last bits of juice from disposable batteries.



Well my question is how is the booster going to get more volts out of the cells? If you try to boost power from alkalines the voltage would be lower as most likely the booster would be taking additional power from the cells and then would drain the batteries quicker, doesnt really get "more" life out of them as I said too the most you'll probably get is an additional 5% out of them because alkalines lose voltage as they get depleted. They don't last long in high drain devices either in which case both NiMh and Li-ion cells can handle better.


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 2, 2015)

cland72 said:


> Valid point, but in low-draw devices this thing could work miracles.


What low-draw devices need voltage boosting?

A low-draw device more than anything should be designed to operate over most of an alkaline's usable voltage range, since even people who typically use rechargeable cells for most uses often put alkalines in such things.

I'd wonder about their claim to 'never lose a game again due to batteries' in game controller handsets.
The normal operation of a constant-voltage device would effectively defeat any battery monitoring a device did, and it's unclear how drastic the fall-off is at the end of cell life. Something which had a constant voltage output and did suck the last drop out of cells would tend to have a fairly sudden cutoff.

Plus a fair few of the things I have which take AAs are very tight on length, and pretty much need a screwdriver to level cells out once they're in. Even a mm more would be awkward in those things.


----------



## billw (Jun 3, 2015)

There is also the reality that most voltage-sensitive electronics that run on batteries these days probably already contain a boost-mode voltage regulator...

It saddens me to see people with apparently reasonable credentials selling apparent snake-oil :-(


----------



## RetroTechie (Jun 3, 2015)

It saddens me that many news outlets seem to copy the marketing blurb without even the most basic of fact checking.

For example "8x longer" translates into "800% vs. 100% duration". That is *7*00% longer, not 800%. But somewhere, someone translates "8x" into "800% _longer_", and many, many other sites copy that without even thinking about it. For example in my country there's this news site Nu.nl which caters to a million+ audience. And their mention of this reads like a straight copy from the site this thread starts with. Even if you can't very the actual performance of the device, you can still read carefully through the claims, right? Basic math isn't rocket science!

I mean, I'm just a simple hobbyist, but _I_ can see what exactly is claimed by reading carefully. Without even grabbing my pocket calculator.  And this news site has people on their payroll who do this for a living (surely including some with their heads buried in tech sites all day), and _they_ can't? :shakehead

Mostly I see this as a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I see the claims, but I don't see the evidence. All I see is a slick website, and a few knowledgeable-_looking_ faces/names plastered on it. But you know what? If the product has any merit, you don't need those names to back up your claims. If the products has no/little merit, those names won't do _anything_ to change that.

What it will do though, is help to move lots of the product before people find out it's of little use (making the 'inventors' very happy :tinfoil: ). At which point it'll work for some people, in some cases, and it becomes pretty much a "yes/no" back & forth. This mode of operation is one of all ages, and if you're not recognizing that pattern, well then... it's your $$... :laughing:

Btw. $2,50 isn't very expensive... when it's out, I just might order a few to do some measurements & find out _how_ well it works (or not). Or ehm, Batteriser people, if you're reading this: feel free to send me a couple so I can verify your claims!


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 3, 2015)

Also, the efficiency claims are *all *based on devices which crap out at 1.4V/cell.
Or, in other words, devices which simply won't work running from rechargeable cells.

I don't recall ever owning any such devices, and I wonder how many people do own any.


----------



## Timothybil (Jun 3, 2015)

uk_caver said:


> Also, the efficiency claims are *all *based on devices which crap out at 1.4V/cell.
> Or, in other words, devices which simply won't work running from rechargeable cells.
> 
> I don't recall ever owning any such devices, and I wonder how many people do own any.


I seem to recall some discussion about this a few years ago in regards to using rechargeable in some devices. IIRC, there were some very low drain devices that used the cell voltage as a reference voltage for measurements.


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 3, 2015)

I wonder what was behind the http://comingsoon-tech.com/batteriser website disappearing?

Temporary server issues?


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 3, 2015)

According to the patent, 1.39V is "_where *a lot* of electronic equipment stop operating_".

Maybe I'm just lucky.


----------



## srvctec (Jun 4, 2015)

I just got an email from one of the tech sites I subscribe to and was going to start a thread on this. Looks promising to me- only time and real world testing will tell.


----------



## magellan (Jun 4, 2015)

billw said:


> There is also the reality that most voltage-sensitive electronics that run on batteries these days probably already contain a boost-mode voltage regulator...
> 
> It saddens me to see people with apparently reasonable credentials selling apparent snake-oil :-(



I didn't know that about the boost mode voltage regulators. 

Very good points.


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 4, 2015)

Really, batteriser's claim:


> *Save the Planet. With your help, Batterisers could shrink the annual amount of battery waste in landfills by up to 8x.*


Seems not to be a true claim, given that only a small fraction of power-using items seem to crap out at ~1.4V/cell.

Even ignoring the efficiency losses and other factors which would result in _faster_ battery exhaustion in many kinds of equipment, an 8x reduction in landfill of batteries via batteriser use would only be possible if people currently used alkalines solely in devices which were highly voltage-sensitive, _which is obviously not the case, and not even nearly the case_.
The vast majority of alkalines are used in equipment which could run perfectly well from NiMH cells.

However much people tried to help, the only thing which could shrink disposal of alkalines by a factor of 8 is people moving more to using non-alkalines, whether that be substitution with NiMH, or the production of equipment which didn't take disposable cells.

Practically speaking, if there *was* a meaningful amount of AAA through D-cell equipment being produced which wouldn't run at NiMH voltages, and which used alkaline cells wastefully, with the possible exception of special uses that's something manufacturers really should be made to state in large letters on the packaging and in advertising and/or which should be automatic grounds for rejecting an item for a full refund.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Jun 4, 2015)

I agree that this device is more suitable for use with nimh batteries than alkalines as I have very few devices that leave a lot of usable power in alkaline batteries but I have several that I have put nimh in them that instead of running for 2/3 as many years due to lower capacity (2000mah vs 2800mah of alkaline) they quit working in about 1/3 of the time or less. My concern is with the standby current drain of such a device as that may use up a great portion of what is unused to begin with (or more) and the increased runtime expected could be decreased or extended not that long when you could just take the batteries out and put them in something else to use them up instead.


----------



## srvctec (Jun 4, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> I agree that this device is more suitable for use with nimh batteries than alkalines as I have very few devices that leave a lot of usable power in alkaline batteries but I have several that I have put nimh in them that instead of running for 2/3 as many years due to lower capacity (2000mah vs 2800mah of alkaline) they quit working in about 1/3 of the time or less. My concern is with the standby current drain of such a device as that may use up a great portion of what is unused to begin with (or more) and the increased runtime expected could be decreased or extended not that long when you could just take the batteries out and put them in something else to use them up instead.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 4, 2015)

Lynx_Arc said:


> I agree that this device is more suitable for use with nimh batteries than alkalines as I have very few devices that leave a lot of usable power in alkaline batteries but I have several that I have put nimh in them that instead of running for 2/3 as many years due to lower capacity (2000mah vs 2800mah of alkaline) they quit working in about 1/3 of the time or less.



Were you using quality low-self-discharge NiMH cells, like Eneloops? If you're using regular NiMH cells that self-discharge, then it's no surprise you'd see short run-times compared to alkalines in a low-drain device (like clocks, remotes, etc.).


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Jun 4, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Were you using quality low-self-discharge NiMH cells, like Eneloops? If you're using regular NiMH cells that self-discharge, then it's no surprise you'd see short run-times compared to alkalines in a low-drain device (like clocks, remotes, etc.).


Rayovac Hybrids which I also use in a remote that lasts up to a year and a half between charges depending on how often I use the backlighting. They last 4-6 months in a digital clock that has remote sensor and radio clock updating while alkalines last from 11 to 14 months. I have a few other devices that when alkalines drop to 1.3v they start acting up and nimh dropping to about 1.28v similarly


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 5, 2015)

Given the 80-90 year history of the suppression of free energy devices in the U.S., given the long documented history of threats made to 'disruptive' inventors, given the selling out for millions of dollars by inventors of inventions that could benefit the masses, and given the fact the Batteriser received the approval of the U.S. Patent Office who verified its claims, the device is not smoke and mirrors but real. 

In fact, the office of the inventor was broken into and the already patented device stolen in October of 2014.

Because this invention stands to impact (reduce) alkaline sales the way the iPad impacted sales of PCs, if it does not come to market I will only conclude that the powers that be threatened the life of the inventor and his loved ones. When you read the history of energy suppression, you learn that this is, unfortunately, commonplace. 

And such threats, in my view, are cowardly.

LetThereBeLight!


----------



## RetroTechie (Jun 5, 2015)

uk_caver said:


> I wonder what was behind the http://comingsoon-tech.com/batteriser website disappearing?
> 
> Temporary server issues?


Page seems to have been removed, perhaps a server crash due to all the media coverage (and getting Slashdotted, as well :laughing: ). Main site seems to be here:
www.Batteriser.com

For all the jay! sayers around here, found a video in which electronics video blogger Dаve Jones shows how debunking is done:

YouTube.com/watch?v=4iEshd6izgk

Some highlights:
5:45 and on: tests a number of AA powered devices in his lab:
Logitech wireless mouse: 1.01V /cell
Logitech wireless keyboard: under 1.00V
A Zoom Handy Recorder (whatever that is): 1.11V
Sennheiser wireless microphone: 1.0V
some remote control: 1.0V
another remote: 1.0V
old-skool VFD display Casio calculator: 0.8V
Xbox controller: 1.0V
Nintendo Gameboy: 1.0V
multimeter: <1.0V
Sony walkman: 1.1V
some electronics probe: 0.95V
LCD thermometer: 1.1~1.2V
Couldn't find a single AA powered device in his lab that drops out at 1.3V or higher. *NOT ONE.* Conclusion: the Batteriser's main claim (1.35V or higher drop-off for most devices) is reproducible, provably wrong. But it gets better:

11:40 Devices that support NiMH's *MUST* support working down to ~1.1V (and do!).
13:00 Marketing fails to mention some well-known facts about discharging alkalines, that turn "80% remaining" into something more like "10, perhaps 20% remaining". TOTALLY DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
14:40 The "0.1V steps" vs. "8x longer" math DOES NOT FIT actual discharge curves (which essentially all look the same).
20:00 DC-DC conversion efficiency will be poor unless under a very narrow range of conditions (load not too small _and_ not too big).
22:40 Renders device's battery gauge useless.
23:10 Batteries' series resistance ignored.
29:40 Danger of short-circuiting a battery.
31:00 News outlets copied claims without any fact-checking (where fact-checking _would_ have been easy!). As noted above... :mecry:
33:00 Website makes false claims.
34:00 Promotion video claims "EVERY dead battery you've EVER thrown away, had only used up to 20% of its battery life?". Maaaaannnn what a BS claim... :whoopin:

Conclusion (35:45) - same as mine: mostly marketing nonsense, with facts twisted in a way that borders on deceit. Nice engineering, but nothing new or revolutional.

@LetThereBeLight!: yeah such conspiracies are bad, but in this case nothing of value would be lost. Good for the inventors though that new suckers are born every day.


----------



## HKJ (Jun 5, 2015)

There was no surprises in Dave's video, but he did a good job on showing some of the problems with the claims.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jun 5, 2015)

I just watched the video, it`s a total bust for virtually any device that is designed to use rechargeable battery`s

I wonder how regulated this booster is, It would be nice if you fit it to an nimh battery and get a regulated output, but most nimh battery`s today are so fat to cram the most capacity into the cell sometimes you cannot get certain cells into some flashlights, and no way with a sleeve booster attached.

Basically it`s a total load.


John.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 5, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Given the 80-90 year history of the suppression of free energy devices in the U.S., given the long documented history of threats made to 'disruptive' inventors, given the selling out for millions of dollars by inventors of inventions that could benefit the masses, and given the fact the Batteriser received the approval of the U.S. Patent Office who verified its claims, the device is not smoke and mirrors but real.
> 
> In fact, the office of the inventor was broken into and the already patented device stolen in October of 2014.
> 
> ...




Given the 100+ year history of conspiracy theory and the curious lack of independent verified testing results on all these magical energy saving devices ..... or in many cases, the independent verified and repeatable tests by knowledgeable people that reveal nothing but snake oil.

This product is a very simple single function device.

1) It will make it to market.

2) It will sell a couple hundred thousand packages (maybe more)

3) It will have a 12-24 month sales run.

4) 24 months from now, you will find them in the bargain bins for $1.99-2.99 on clear-out.

Just my prediction.


----------



## MidnightDistortions (Jun 5, 2015)

NiMH rechargeables was i think was supposed to replace alkalines but unfortunately some people can't be bothered by recharging their cells or they think they don't work because they don't know how to care for them. Then to top it off NiMHs (the standard HSD ones) self discharge too much making them a bad replacement for alkalines since they can be used over a longer period of time but alkalines are still single use cells. Eneloops are gaining popularity though so that's a good thing but many are still on alkalines because it's all they know how to use, just buy them and throw them in your device. Kinda talked about this in a maglite post on why Mags only recommend alkalines.

So it's like oh, people want to reduce battery consumption but instead of actually researching, learning and using NiMHs or other rechargeable battery technology, they try to siphon more energy out of alkalines. To me it doesn't make sense but somehow to some folks it's logical to them to try to get more use out of alkalines. Back in the 80's and 90's these alkaline adapters would have been more beneficial but alkalines are a dated product that should have run it's course once the Eneloops redefined NiMH technology.


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 6, 2015)

SemiMan said:


> Given the 100+ year history of conspiracy theory and the curious lack of independent verified testing results on all these magical energy saving devices ..... or in many cases, the independent verified and repeatable tests by knowledgeable people that reveal nothing but snake oil.
> 
> This product is a very simple single function device.
> 
> ...



Actually, semi man, just look up Tom Bearden or John Bedini or the late Stanley Meyer and their respective work or, a man named Howard Johnson (deceased) whose machine or generator which ran on magnets alone posed a direct threat.

That "curious lack..." you mention is in reality what we call suppression.

LetThereBeLight!


----------



## Power Me Up (Jun 6, 2015)

Hey LetThereBeLight!

I sent you a private message but I haven't seen a response - maybe you just haven't seen the notification for it?


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 6, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Actually, semi man, just look up Tom Bearden or John Bedini or the late Stanley Meyer and their respective work or, a man named Howard Johnson (deceased) whose machine or generator which ran on magnets alone posed a direct threat.
> 
> That "curious lack..." you mention is in reality what we call suppression.
> 
> LetThereBeLight!



Howard Johnson .... Really .... Hey if you want to believe the laws of thermodynamics do not exist that is your right. The rest of us live in the real world.

The HJ "patents" ran out long ago. Why don't you have one of his motors powering your house? Patents are readily available. What is your excuse?


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 6, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Actually, semi man, just look up Tom Bearden or John Bedini or the late Stanley Meyer and their respective work or, a man named Howard Johnson (deceased) whose machine or generator which ran on magnets alone posed a direct threat.
> 
> That "curious lack..." you mention is in reality what we call suppression.
> 
> LetThereBeLight!



I knew the name Bedini just could not remember where from .... Seems he makes any real money from selling snake oil battery rejuvenators and peddling books.

Strange that all these fans of this tech but no one can actually demonstrate .... Under controlled conditions and allowing others access AND measurement .... Something that wor 

No one doubt's there are physics that we as of yet do not understand and new sources of energy generation will be developed. However, why is it these charlatans never allow their devices to be independently evaluated and tested. They view any skepticism as a personal attack and refuse to be bounded by basic common sense always blaming someone else's supposedly inability to reproduce their results as lacking insight yet are unwilling to allow their own inventions to be verified? They are obviously not getting rich and I know I would have 0 ...absolutely 0 issue getting funding on a device that can achieve reasonable costs of energy production. There are more than enough very rich people who are too rich to be suppressed and have no motives to be. According to most of these people you reference, not more than a few million should yield scale. So why does it never happen?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 6, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Actually, semi man, just look up Tom Bearden or John Bedini or the late Stanley Meyer and their respective work or, a man named Howard Johnson (deceased) whose machine or generator which ran on magnets alone posed a direct threat.
> 
> That "curious lack..." you mention is in reality what we call suppression.
> 
> LetThereBeLight!



Wow! I thought your original post was meant to be satirical. But... you're actually serious??? :fail:


----------



## BillSWPA (Jun 6, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Given the 80-90 year history of the suppression of free energy devices in the U.S., given the long documented history of threats made to 'disruptive' inventors, given the selling out for millions of dollars by inventors of inventions that could benefit the masses, and given the fact the Batteriser received the approval of the U.S. Patent Office who verified its claims, the device is not smoke and mirrors but real.
> 
> In fact, the office of the inventor was broken into and the already patented device stolen in October of 2014.
> 
> ...



No, it has not received the approval of the patent office. It is not patented. It is the subject of a published application that has received a requirement to elect a species for continued prosecution. Only after the election is made will examination begin. The first office action will in all likelihood reject most of all claims, which will start a cycle of amendments and further office actions before a patent is issued.

That examination will focus largely on a comparison of the claims to the prior art to determine whether the claims are novel and nonobvious. If there are clear workability problems, that can certainly serve as a basis for rejection, but inventions with serious workability problems can and do get through.


----------



## lyyyghtey (Jun 6, 2015)

Although I agree that most of the proposed 'justifications' for this device are a misrepresentation of reality with regards to actual AA-powered devices and real alkaline performance, I can think of one very specific application for these which would be equally welcome using alkalines and NiMH (depending, of course, on Batteriser's current capabilities):

AA-powered (or that can be made AA-powered using adapters) LED (body-worn type) Christmas light strings. Many of these are designed with very low value resistors and enough forward voltage of LEDs to barely pull 20 mA per diode (average) from fresh alkalines. NiMH (even freshly charged) and alkalines with any significant amount of depletion at all typically show noticeably reduced output, often to the point of near uselessness throughout most of a NiMH battery's discharge. I'm thinking of specific applications where it would be nice to have the strings stay at full brightness, such as theatrical, display, and the like. In these applications it actually would help the light strings significantly to have a regulated 1.5V per cell input.

Sure it would be more efficient to have the entire battery pack regulated globally, and sure you'll experience a sudden drop out at the end and a greatly reduced overall run time in this application, but I'd definitely trade these considerations in for the ability to easily get these LED strings to run at full brightness for some hours without having to mod them!

There may be some flashlights that could benefit from these boost regulators as well (if they fit) but I tend not to use that kind of torch very much and can't think of any examples I'd pop one into.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Jun 6, 2015)

I'm guessing that the cost of these circuits and having to use 1 per cell such that a 3-4 cell device may have you paying $15-$20 will make folks just opt to use energizer lithium primaries in their devices instead and look to totally replace the device. As far as the battery powered LED Christmas lights strings I would just build a larger battery pack to wire into it with either a voltage regulator or buck circuit to drop a higher input voltage down to optimal range.


----------



## RetroTechie (Jun 7, 2015)

SemiMan said:


> They are obviously not getting rich and I know I would have 0 ...absolutely 0 issue getting funding on a device that can achieve reasonable costs of energy production. There are more than enough very rich people who are too rich to be suppressed and have no motives to be. According to most of these people you reference, not more than a few million should yield scale. So why does it never happen?


Funny the rich folks should be mentioned. Just a few days ago had a look at a list of top global companies in terms of revenue (Fortune 500? I forgot already  ), and what'ya know? Top of the list a variety of oil companies, followed by several companies dealing in product that _consumes_ energy (cars). So it's obvious there could be a long line of mega-companies willing to pay big $$ to make new-cheap-energy-invention go away (by whatever means necessary).

But: suppose I would invent such new-cheap-energy-technology (that actually works!). Either 2 things could happen:
1) I might get rich by taking a bribe from said companies to "go away".
2) I might get rich by staying under the radar, develop a product in secret, prepare for mass production, and then surprise the world / take out a patent or two. Sure those companies might be interested in making me "go away" at _that_ point, but if done right there could be a huge # of products out there before any of these companies knew what hit 'em.

Guess what choice I would make... would I be the only one to choose that path? Are such inventions so few and far between that no-one succeeded in bringing something to market? So indeed why didn't it happen already.

In this case: no real 'invention', no new tech or as of yet unexplained physics. It's pretty clear what the Batteriser does, and what the limits of that technology are. As for that office break in: _maybe_ there was some big company that hired a few goons to get design specs & an early sample of the product. Who cares - designers got out a patent so if there's money to be made they can rest easy.

SemiMan is right, it _will_ go to market, and it _will_ sell. Why? For one, simply because the market is so huge. If only 0.01% of everyone who uses AA batteries buys 1 Batteriser, that will be a big number. And probably there will be _some_ cases where the device will be _somewhat_ useful. My take:



SemiMan said:


> 4) 24 months from now, you will find them in the bargain bins for $1.99-2.99 on clear-out.


Timespan sounds about right, I'm betting $0.50-0.99 a pop on clear-out. Possibly per 2 or 4-pack. :laughing:


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 9, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Wow! I thought your original post was meant to be satirical. But... you're actually serious??? :fail:



Quite serious. I've spent years researching & corroborating what I've read/learned. Unfortunately, many (maybe not yourself) suffer from the normalcy bias.


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 9, 2015)

Power Me Up said:


> Hey LetThereBeLight!
> 
> I sent you a private message but I haven't seen a response - maybe you just haven't seen the notification for it?



Sorry, I was busy with work & life stuff and haven't been on in some days. PM sent!


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 9, 2015)

BillSWPA said:


> No, it has not received the approval of the patent office. It is not patented. It is the subject of a published application that has received a requirement to elect a species for continued prosecution. Only after the election is made will examination begin. The first office action will in all likelihood reject most of all claims, which will start a cycle of amendments and further office actions before a patent is issued.
> 
> That examination will focus largely on a comparison of the claims to the prior art to determine whether the claims are novel and nonobvious. If there are clear workability problems, that can certainly serve as a basis for rejection, but inventions with serious workability problems can and do get through.



Interesting because the Inventor said despite the theft he had already received a Patent. Can you prove that which you claim? Thanks.


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 9, 2015)

SemiMan said:


> I knew the name Bedini just could not remember where from .... Seems he makes any real money from selling snake oil battery rejuvenators and peddling books.
> 
> Strange that all these fans of this tech but no one can actually demonstrate .... Under controlled conditions and allowing others access AND measurement .... Something that wor
> 
> No one doubt's there are physics that we as of yet do not understand and new sources of energy generation will be developed. However, why is it these charlatans never allow their devices to be independently evaluated and tested. They view any skepticism as a personal attack and refuse to be bounded by basic common sense always blaming someone else's supposedly inability to reproduce their results as lacking insight yet are unwilling to allow their own inventions to be verified? They are obviously not getting rich and I know I would have 0 ...absolutely 0 issue getting funding on a device that can achieve reasonable costs of energy production. There are more than enough very rich people who are too rich to be suppressed and have no motives to be. According to most of these people you reference, not more than a few million should yield scale. So why does it never happen?



The answer to your question can be seen in the movie called TUCKER-- about Preston Tucker whose cars pioneered the seatbelt, disc brakes, and much more but he was put out of business by big Detroit on phony income tax evasion charges after which he could never get venture capitalist funding. Detroit stole his innovations.

The patent office almost denied Stanley Meyer his patent but then he made an adjustment to his device that so scared the patent officer whose scream brought others into the office after which the patent was awarded right then and there.

When you read about the history of suppression you will have many more answers for each and everyone of your questions.

LetThereBeLight!


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 9, 2015)

SemiMan said:


> Howard Johnson .... Really .... Hey if you want to believe the laws of thermodynamics do not exist that is your right. The rest of us live in the real world.
> 
> The HJ "patents" ran out long ago. Why don't you have one of his motors powering your house? Patents are readily available. What is your excuse?



You keep making many implicit assumptions that I really do not want to make the time to refute, but YOU can by going to the keeleynet site or the Rex research site, for starters.

Lastly, with respect, I think you are intelligent enough know that if one of his magnet motors were in fact powering my home do you really think I would tell you or anyone that and attract the attention of governments who forbid such devices?

LetThereBeLight!


----------



## thedoc007 (Jun 10, 2015)

Rex Research is not much better than Time Cube. If that is the best you can do to support your case, you might as well give it up promoting it now.


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 10, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> Rex Research is not much better than Time Cube. If that is the best you can do to support your case, you might as well give it up promoting it now.



That's your opinion. And yours alone. You weirdly cite nothing to substantiate your claim. Why?
And strangely, you fail to mention Keeleynet or Bearden's site. Is that the best you can do? 

Really?

I'll tell you why you were dismissive.

It's because it's much easier to dismissively Slam someone's contribution than to expend the energy and time to research and corroborate and offer something of value here for everyone to ponder, reflect upon, or research for themselves.

This same attack 'tone' was evident in my Tesla Flashlight thread so much so that the Moderator had to delete certain posts because they violated CPF rules.

You certainly have the right to your opinions and beliefs, but when you offer them with a cold dismissive tone expect to be called out on it.


----------



## thedoc007 (Jun 10, 2015)

*Rex Research* *was established in 1982 by* *Robert A. Nelson* *to archive and distribute " InFolios " -- Information Folios -- collected Articles about suppressed, dormant, & emerging Sciences, Technologies, Inventions, Theories, Therapies, & other Alternatives that offer realistic Hope & multiple Choices to help Liberate Humanity from its Stupidity and the evile Pornocracy of* *Psychopaths**.* 
*Freedom, Truth, Love & Earth are gravely wounded, & Time is accelerating / compressing -- running out, along with the Oxygen & Oil & Money & Luck & Stuff * -- in these Latter Days of this era of "Civilization" as we knew it ...* 

*The Rex Research Civilization Kit can help You hope to survive the present Extinction Event, to transmit a healthy, knowledge-empowered Human Genome on a Live Earth !*
*Enjoy your visit, and y'all come back again real soon now !* 

*[ * Freedom, Truth, Love, Peace, Earth, Time, Oxygen, Oil, Money, Luck & Stuff are Patented, Copyrighted, & Trademarked Inventions of Rex Research -- Dealer Inquiries Invited ]*





Directly excerpted from Rex Research...all errors are the site author's, not mine.

This is all the evidence I need. *Very* poor formatting, spelling errors, invented words, meaningless terms, random capitalization, and most importantly, many scientific errors. When something is that poorly written, it is a clear sign. And that is just one tiny section...it gets worse. 

Obviously that is my opinion...but it is hardly mine alone. Anyone with a third grade education should be able to tell that site is a joke.

I mentioned the site I am at least passing familiar with. Just because you can name another site (which may be better, or may not, everyone can judge for themselves) doesn't mean that your argument is valid. That is a classic deflection technique...

I'm happy to be "called out". My opinion is based on direct observation. If you use a site that poor to support your argument, it is no surprise that people will be critical. 

I wish you the best of luck, LetThereBeLight! But I doubt you'll find a sympathetic audience here.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 10, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Quite serious. I've spent years researching & corroborating what I've read/learned. Unfortunately, many (maybe not yourself) suffer from the normalcy bias.



So where are your products? Please send just one to me .... I have more than enough equipment to verify any form of energy generation.

Are you up for the challenge?


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 10, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> The answer to your question can be seen in the movie called TUCKER-- about Preston Tucker whose cars pioneered the seatbelt, disc brakes, and much more but he was put out of business by big Detroit on phony income tax evasion charges after which he could never get venture capitalist funding. Detroit stole his innovations.
> 
> The patent office almost denied Stanley Meyer his patent but then he made an adjustment to his device that so scared the patent officer whose scream brought others into the office after which the patent was awarded right then and there.
> 
> ...



- Disc brakes for automotive ... invented in 1902 in England
- First US patent on a seat belt 1885. Nash offered them as an option in 1949 ... hardly any sold.

I can point to most of the things in the Tucker Torpedo as being around for quite some time. The reason why they were not in use was not because they were not good ideas, but they were good ideas not nearly developed or without enough market draw to justify.

Tucker should have read the book "Lean Startup" ....  .... He may have been a good engineer, even visionary, but he was not a good businessman, he was not a good product developer, and he certainly was not good with money or frankly ethics.

What he set out to do was completely unrealistic. He wanted to hit a home run on his first ever time up to the plate. A smarter person with less ego would realize the goal is not a home run .... it's to score as many runs as possible. If you are "Out" ... your chances of getting around the bases are 0.

0 is the chance of him getting his product to market. He kept pulling back feature after feature, most of which never should have been targeted for initial release. Believing his own ego, and not in reality, he sold financial instruments believing he would be able to pay them back soon ... financial instruments being dealerships, downpayments on vehicles, etc. Then when faced with not getting his product to market, he put those funds which could only be used for specific purposes, into general revenue essentially ..... which was illegal and by which he ended up having all his troubles.

If he ever got his car to market it would have been:

- Too expensive (limiting sales)
- Have serious reliability issues due to all the new technology

Even today, have you ever seen hydraulic drive for a vehicle? .... nope ..expensive and not much benefit. Only used on construction equipment (where he got the idea).


People who write conspiracy theories ... especially media associated, are the internet equivalent of click bait. You can always pull someone in. Was there some questionable politics around Tucker ... sure, but if you give put a noose around your neck, don't be surprised when competitors kick the chair out from under you.

Semiman


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 10, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> You keep making many implicit assumptions that I really do not want to make the time to refute, but YOU can by going to the keeleynet site or the Rex research site, for starters.
> 
> Lastly, with respect, I think you are intelligent enough know that if one of his magnet motors were in fact powering my home do you really think I would tell you or anyone that and attract the attention of governments who forbid such devices?
> 
> LetThereBeLight!



Sorry no government's ban such devices. In fact the patent has long since run out. Build them to your hearts content. Heck, power your house and Bill Gates will likely write you a check for a billion dollars.

I will make the safe assumption you don't have one.

If you want to prove me wrong, you are more then welcome. If you are not, then I can only assume you are not telling the truth.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 10, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

Your assumption is that governments want to suppress such tech, but many countries are not energy self sufficient (China come to mind) and have no reason to suppress such tech. In fact the economic value of building such devices is staggering. A mfg economy such as China with cheap energy would be untouchable. No one could compete.


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Jun 10, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*



SemiMan said:


> Your assumption is that governments want to suppress such tech, but many countries are not energy self sufficient (China come to mind) and have no reason to suppress such tech. In fact the economic value of building such devices is staggering. A mfg economy such as China with cheap energy would be untouchable. No one could compete.



Actually, Tucker did bring his car to market and sold many before he was put out of business. There are about 1000 Tucker cars that collectors have preserved. Why would George Lucas, who owns several Tucker cars and who was already fabulously wealthy, produce a film about a fraud? 

Scrutiny and proof of concept are important to any worthy endeavor or claim but I am not going to get into a pissing match and respond to every dismissive post here as opposed to dialogue which makes for good human relations, education, enlightenment, curiosity, and more, which is what this site and its moderators promote. 

So what do I believe? I believe the batteriser exists and that the inventor did not stage a break-in into his own office to have his "device" stolen so he could get publicity for something that does not even exist. When you research suppression you find that his story is not uncommon because of who stands to lose money when disruptive technology is brought into the patent office or into the marketplace. 

Lastly, I do not seek a sympathetic audience. I am on a quest for the truth, no sympathy needed, requested, or desired, thank you. Anyone who seeks truth knows not to put on one's best trousers!

Good luck to you in your own quest for the truth. Truth is often such a strange thing.


----------



## BillSWPA (Jun 10, 2015)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Interesting because the Inventor said despite the theft he had already received a Patent. Can you prove that which you claim? Thanks.



Start with the link to the "patent" in the initial post. The number begins with a year, followed by another 7 digits. That is a published application number. A patent number would be the sequential number in which the patent is issued, which for a long time has been a 7 digit number in the millions, with no reference to a year.

The prosecution history of published applications as well as issued patents is available on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website, www.uspto.gov. Under "patents" go to check status, which will be towards the right side of the screen. Since you are checking the status of a published application, you want "Public PAIR". You can then enter the publication number and retrieve the current status as well as the USPTO file. The documents themselves can be viewed and downloaded. When I checked a few days ago, the last action was the restriction requirement.

A lot of people mistakenly believe they have a patent when their application is filed, when this is in fact just the start of the examination process.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 10, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*



LetThereBeLight! said:


> Actually, Tucker did bring his car to market and sold many before he was put out of business. There are about 1000 Tucker cars that collectors have preserved. Why would George Lucas, who owns several Tucker cars and who was already fabulously wealthy, produce a film about a fraud?
> 
> Scrutiny and proof of concept are important to any worthy endeavor or claim but I am not going to get into a pissing match and respond to every dismissive post here as opposed to dialogue which makes for good human relations, education, enlightenment, curiosity, and more, which is what this site and its moderators promote.
> 
> ...



1000 cars in collectors hands huh? ... how is that possible when only 50 production and 51 prototypes were made? You said you were all about the truth right?

Coppola ... not Lucas.

I did not say Tucker did not make vehicles, but there is a big difference in cars between making hundreds and being "in production" and selling in mass.

Why would Coppala do it .... cause it is good story telling.

I cannot take your "quest for truth" either seriously or sincerely. If you truly believe in a quest for truth, you would freely allow the devices you claim to have been built, to be analyzed and verified to operate as you describe. However, you seem unwilling and to that end, I can only assume snake oil. 

No one is claiming that the Batteriser does not exist. A boost circuit and some metal is hardly rocket science. Neat packaging, that is all it is and more power to them.

What we all claim, is that the marketing is snake oil. They maker of this product is making false claims that "most" products stop operating when 80% of the remaining energy is still in the battery. This is patently false. MOST products on the market will use 80% plus of the energy in an alcaline battery. Hence, for the MAJORITY of products on the market, this product will not provide much if any benefit and to claim that it will is pretty much false advertising and falls into the category of snake oil.

Again, I will put it to you. If you truly believe in "Truth", then allow the truth out .... allow your devices you claim to have built to verify others claims ... to be inspected and tested.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 10, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

Sounds a lot like arguing with guys who claim the earth is 6,000 years old and that the stars are really tiny and just out of reach, etc.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 10, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

That would make me Bill Nye


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 10, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

I'll be happy to believe this magical stuff when it's commercially produced and shown to work. Until then, I'll continue to believe in existing laws of physics. Conspiracy theories, alone, aren't going to convince me.


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 10, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

The major points about the batteriser are:

a) It seems unlikely to be useful except in a small minority of [badly-designed] products, and in many (possibly even most) other products it seems likely to reduce battery life rather than extend it, due to electronic inefficiencies in the converter combined with most devices having a current consumption which is either largely voltage-independent or higher at higher voltages for no obvious improvement in performance. Indeed, those relatively few devices which have a _lower_ current consumption at higher voltages would typically have an internal buck and/or boost regulator, and so should be very unlikely to benefit from a batteriser in the first place.

b) The target market is very much going to be that large fraction of the population who have little or no clue which few (if any) of their devices might benefit from using a batteriser.

c) If publicity so far (which seems to vary between 'optimistic' and 'misleading') is any guide, the manufacturers won't be going out of their way to educate anyone on the kind of devices the batteriser would *reduce* alkaline runtimes on.


----------



## Lynx_Arc (Jun 11, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

I think you would be better off designing a circuit that you can slide in place at the ends of the batteries between the contacts that boosts the voltage instead of trying to wrap it around a battery and make it have several preset voltage settings of 1.5/3.0/4.5/6.0v etc. This may be made cheap enough in quantity in china to buy for less than $5 for each device needing it vs having to buy 1,2,3, or even 4 of these to slip over EACH battery costing $5 each so a 4 battery device would cost $20 to "fix".


----------



## lyyyghtey (Jun 16, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

That is a great idea! It would solve the inefficiency of regulating each cell separately, while yet retaining the ability to easily get some device (like the light strings I mentioned) up and running quickly without a modification. It might also be a lot more likely to fit. I'm sure a large segment of the population wouldn't be able to figure out how to use it, but there are many who would buy it, including myself.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jun 16, 2015)

*Re: Batteriser - Wonderful Alkaline Helper or This Weeks Smoke &amp; Mirrors?*

Reminds me of my BCS Power Stick, that is designed to replace 2x D cells in an Maglite and regulates the output to keep the brightness constant also it has an soft start to protect the filament and a low battery flashing mode, these are years old and no longer available i think, such a pity i love mine.

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/lightingpro_powerstik.htm

John.


----------



## JouleCrazy (Jun 24, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> Page seems to have been removed, perhaps a server crash due to all the media coverage (and getting Slashdotted, as well :laughing: ). Main site seems to be here:
> www.Batteriser.com
> 
> For all the jay! sayers around here, found a video in which electronics video blogger Dаve Jones shows how debunking is done:
> ...



Greetings all!


While I love the above, I would like to try to bring some perspective.


Summary (of the following): The claims about Batteriser as a whole are inflated, but I still think it's a useful product, and I intend to get at least a few of them, based on the information I have at this time.


One thing Dave Jones forgets is that this could be a switched-capacitor boost converter - then it wouldn't need an inductor, as he assumes. This assumption fuels further objections, including his assumption that he doesn't think that this product can deliver much power.

Dave is also concerned about heat, but the battery with its electrode, metal jackets, and dense chemicals, is a great natural heat sink, and I don't see an issue, especially since I'll be powering low-power devices with with my Batterisers, once I get them.


Another problem with his arguments is that all of the battery datasheets Dave referenced only showed the characteristic curve down to 0.8 volts, which does actually leave a lot of energy still in the battery. I've been building Joule Thief flashlights that use these "dead" batteries down to 0.5 volts, and they can last for literally days after they've been "dead" according to most electronic gadgets.


There are a lot of objections that Dave raises, and after watching the whole video multiple times, I think that he's pretty much right on that it won't help people as much as they think, but that's just because they don't understand the principles involved as well as needed; use fresh batteries on regular electronics, save your "dead" batteries, and use them with Batteriser for low-powered gadgets.


To me, it is an inexpensive, ultra-compact Joule Thief, and I'm getting a few because I know how I would use them. 


I have a calculator which I intend to hook up to two of these, and it may run for years on "dead" batteries and these Batteriser gadgets.


And I can add a thin plastic sheet to prevent the short-circuit danger (but they should definitely fix that one!)


Conclusions regarding Batteriser:

1. The number one benefit of Batteriser - When batteries won't work with Batteriser, they will be truly dead, and I can finally throw them out, or hopefully recycle them! 

2. Dave's right - the Boost Converter will likely be inefficient at that boost-level and power-level. But that's energy you would have thrown out anyway, so it actually increases your overall efficiency by increasing your utilization - you are more fully using each battery.

3. Dave's right - the drop-out voltage on most electronics will be 1.0 to 1.1 volts, so Batteriser will not help as much as they claim, since the Batteriser company claims what seems to be an inflated or unrealistic drop-out voltage of 1.35 to 1.4, which may only be common on motorized or other high-power goods or poorly-engineered electronics.

4. Their claim of 80% unused battery life will hurt the product. Actually, the opposite is usually true. At the more common drop-out voltage Dave tested in his video (~1v), 80% of the battery capacity was used, leaving only 20% to reclaim or recover.

5. I don't think that heat-sinking is an issue, as batteries conduct heat very well. The proper use for this product is for low-power goods anyway, such as powering a 30mA LED.

6. At higher power draw, Batteriser will simply not be able to pull enough from the battery. At low power draw, the ESR is not as much of an issue.

7. Dave objects that a devices Battery Gauge is rendered useless by the constant voltage output of Batteriser, and this is true. But you start out using the battery without Batteriser, so the battery gauge works for this phase of usage. Then the battery dies the first time, and you add Batteriser to extend its life. You will soon know by experience how much past that your batteries will last, and what devices are low-powered enough to benefit by using Batteriser.

8. A little packing tape will prevent the short-circuit danger, but they should fix the product.

9. Dave objects that the quiescent current (draw while off) of Batteriser may reduce battery life over time - the typical example he gave was 300 micro-Amps. If this is true, I'll have to load batteriser to use it, then unload them to keep batteries from being slowly drained to death - way too much of a hassle, and a killer of many applications for me, if it turns out to be a problem. We won't know until we can get devices to test, or the manufacturer publishes specifications or a datasheet.

10. Some claim that using Batteriser is inefficient because you're boosting the voltage twice. While this is technically true, the more important fact is that this is recovering energy which was going to be thrown away, so what's actually important is that you're using more of the overall energy of the battery. ANY converter will be operating at a lower conversion-efficiency when extracting this last amount of energy, but improves the overall-utilization-efficiency by recovering energy previously thrown away (saving money, making less waste, using fewer batteries, an environmentally green side-effect).


I hope this added some perspective. While I'm not happy about their inflated or exaggerated claims, I still think this product is useful, and I intend to buy them.


-JouleCrazy


----------



## David_P_tech (Jul 11, 2015)

The debunking of the Batteriser was flawed. If you are still skeptical, so here is some more information for you. I hope it helps you better understand the product:
Batteroo released a video demonstrating why you cannot use a power supply box to "debunk" the Batteriser. Batteries and constant power supply boxes behave very differently: https://youtu.be/Rv5eHRnjGC8

That YouTube page also has a video of the Batteriser tested on flashlights. Check it out if interested.

This video and study published by Duracell claims that batteries thrown away on average have 67% capacity left. https://youtu.be/JglYXZgP740 . Note that Duracell is saying that 33% of batteries thrown away have 67% life in them...

Next point, this study by Dr. Rolfz in Switzerland claims that 10% of batteries thrown away contains 1.4v left when discarded. (http://www2.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~rolfz/batak/ICBR2003_Zinniker.pdf ).
This Swiss conference study is very interesting. The results show that the average battery in the test retained 33.3% of the battery's capacity...10% were considered "new" and it looks like over 60% had over half of the capacity.

Also interesting was their extrapolation that 20 million Swiss Francs (about $21.2 million USD) worth of battery value is thrown away every year in Switzerland!

The most important point from this article is that 10% of batteries had cut off voltage greater than 1.4 volts, which means that 1.5 billion batteries have greater than 1.4 cut off voltage. 1.4v is much higher than Batteriser’s patent claim of 1.3 to 1.35 volts cut off voltage...

30% of discarded batteries have 50% energy left in them...which is again a very significant point...this means if device could use the other 50%..., one can double the life of the battery.....The point that I want to pay more attention to is that the assumption is that Batteries would stop working at 0.9 volts...however with Batteriser we can draw the remaining power till around 0.6 volts which is gives additional life extension to the battery. Batteriser would put out 1.5v all the way down to 0.5-0.6v, which has not been done or available before.


----------



## SemiMan (Jul 11, 2015)

What is missing from all your stats is why the batteries are thrown out. Almost no devices stop working with batteries at 1.4v which pretty much debunks stats as they apply to the Battetizer. Its claims are false. Devices don't stop working at the charge levels they claim.


----------



## SemiMan (Jul 11, 2015)

There is almost no energy below 0.85v so even if it works that low who cares.


----------



## MidnightDistortions (Jul 12, 2015)

The reason so many alkalines are thrown out is because people think there's no way to check them. Both Duracell and Energizer had battery life indicators on the battery, not sure what happened to that but people assume that once the device stops running or battery is low they automatically think they are drained. They don't check the voltage or think that they could throw the cells into a clock or something else low drain. I'm not sure how you can get the other 50% of the charge out of using a camera, NiMH cells such as Eneloops work far better as NiMH cells maintain voltage on high drain devices.

It's that people do not understand that they do not need the 1.4-1.5 volts and most of their devices would work with NiMH batteries. If that devices needs the 1.4-1.5 volts.. that device is using outdated means for keeping alkaline cells around. Again if people were concerned about trying to get all the power out of alkaline cells they might as well switch to rechargeables.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 12, 2015)

Often people throw out perfectly good alkalines, just because they think "it's about time I replace that battery". We're often told to replace the batteries in smoke detectors twice a year, even though it's not necessary.

But this batteriser won't help that. People will still throw away good batteries, just because they think they might need replacing.

Almost every device now works down to about 1.0v or 1.1v per cell, getting almost all the energy of either an alkaline or rechargeable battery. The claim this maker uses of 1.4v per cell is a red herring.


----------



## Kurt_Woloch (Jul 12, 2015)

David_P_tech said:


> This video and study published by Duracell claims that batteries thrown away on average have 67% capacity left. https://youtu.be/JglYXZgP740 . Note that Duracell is saying that 33% of batteries thrown away have 67% life in them...



You're citing that wrong. It says that UP TO one third of them MAY have UP TO 67% of usable left inside. That says that both numbers actually may be lower... we don't know for sure.

I agree that batteries are often thrown out prematurely, with various reasons such as... always use fresh batteries in wireless microphones in order to ensure they don't die during a performance, or: one battery of the set leaked, so the whole set gets replaced (and the leaked one had some power left as well). Or some other defect occured, but the batteries were blamed first and exchanged before it was realized that there was a different source for a non-working device. Or, as you said, some instructions that the batteries should be exchanged after some fixed amount of time (as recommended in the manual), regardless of how much power is still left. Or the device is very high drain (such as a digital camera used with Alkalines in emergency) such that it is only able to use a fraction of the power, after which the alkaline battery is unable to continue to supply the high amount of power required by the device.

I don't think every battery used with the Batterizer is fully drained. It still depends on the power requirements of the device. Let's say a device, such as a flashlight, would normally drain 500 mA down to 0.9 V, so the usable capacity (according to HKJ's tests) of an Alkaline battery would only be about 1.5 Ah out of 3 Ah total, so 50%. Now if you apply the Batterizer, it will try to boost the voltage, but it will draw more amps to do that. So, due to the already high internal resistance of the cell, the voltage will go down further. Let's assume the no-load voltage of the battery would be 1.3 V at that point, so the internal resistance of the battery is 0.8 Ohms. Now the Batterizer will typically draw more due to the conversion losses, let's say 600 mA, which makes the voltage drop to 1.3 - 0.48 = 0.82 Volts. This will be boosted up to the normal 1.5 volts. Now the device still needs 500 mA, but the boost converter needs 915 mA plus its own losses to produce 1.5 V out of the 0.82 Volts input voltage, so let's put that at 1.015 amps total. This will cause the voltage to sag further down to 0.488 Volts. Since the boost converter only works down to 0.6 volts, the battery now is at a point where it will stop working with the Batterizer as well, or the Batterizer now will drop its output voltage to 1.22 volts, but needs 1.3 Amps to maintain it, which further drops the input voltage to 0.28 volts and the output voltage to 0.7 volts, so it is now lower than it was before without the Batterizer. And the battery still isn't fully drained, it still has about 50% of its capacity left, it's just unable to support the power requirement anymore.


----------



## SemiMan (Jul 12, 2015)

That is not how batteries work. A battery that is 3ah at 10ma may only be 1.5ah at 1A. If you use 1.5ah at 1a that does not mean there is 1.5 left .... Most of that is gone as internal losses in the battery.


----------



## SemiMan (Jul 12, 2015)

Up till recently I did use alkalines regularly or at least the family did. I would always check voltage before throwing away. Rarely was there any useful capacity left, Nada. Of course I don't use incans any more.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jul 12, 2015)

HKJ said:


> There was no surprises in Dave's video, but he did a good job on showing some of the problems with the claims.




Agreed. This one sounds too good to be true, and it is.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jul 12, 2015)

David_P_tech said:


> That YouTube page also has a video of the Batteriser tested on flashlights. Check it out if interested.



Although you did not give a link, I was able to find the vid made by Batteriser that you mentioned. I was not impressed.

What kind of flashlight was used in that test? It looks suspiciously like an unregulated, incandescent 2x AA Maglite from yesteryear. Here is my frame-grab.







On fresh alkaleaks, it puts out an amazing 60 lux at what must be much less than 1m. This is hardly a realistic test. In fact, in my opinion, it is just the kind of "test" that is designed to deceive an unsophisticated viewer. 

Most of the AA flashlights that we are interested in have boost drivers built into the flashlight. Certainly that is true of the 1x AA LED models. Would you care to run a Batteriser test using any of them? My guess is, "No, thank you."

I see you are a new CPF member, and that this is your first post. May I ask, are you in any way employed by or affiliated with Batteriser?

Thanks.


----------



## samgab (Sep 4, 2015)

Someone above said that their cells still have a lot of life in them once they get down to 0.8V (under load presumably)
Well, I guess the definition of "a lot" is open to interpretation, but I wouldn't say that is the case.
Please have a read of HKJ's excellent testing on his website here:
http://lygte-info.dk/info/batteryEnergyAtLowVoltage UK.html

At 0.8V under a 1W load, the Alkalines he tested (Duracell Plus Power) had 7% of their energy remaining.
At 0.7V, 2% remaining.
At 0.6V, as near as makes no difference, no energy remaining (0.5%, not extractable).

Under a 0.5W load the results are even worse.
At 0.8V there is 1.5% remaining. At 0.7V, less that 0.5% remaining.

Under a 0.2W load the energy is effectively all gone by 0.8V.

All of the tests shown in Batterisers videos are very much deliberately skewed or faked to give the impression of the device working (it does "work"... It just doesn't have anywhere near the level of benefits that they claim because it would have to break the laws of physics and thermodynamics to do what they claim). And they appear to be using shady marketing techniques like employing people to go on forums under assumed identities talking up the product, and paying for downvotes on youtube videos that show up the flaws in their product. The person/s who promote their product on Youtube and on forums have gotten really nasty too, even threatening a 13yo boy who posted a debunking video.

Check out Dave Jones' follow up videos responding to some of Batteriser's videos, and also check a couple of the threads on the EEVBLOG forum discussing this. Very shady.
If it wasn't for all of the shady stuff going on and the deliberate attempts to mislead, I'd be interested in this product, more as a curiosity than because I believe it has any practical use; but as it is, I've observed what's been going on and I'm really put off.

(That poster above (David P tech) who is a new sign-up to this forum is almost certainly the same person or part of the same group who have been active on youtube and other forums, and are affiliated with Batteriser. Expect them to post an attack on my post here if they're still monitoring this thread. You'll see from my history on this forum that I'm a legit flashlight enthusiast and hobbyist, not affiliated with anyone, so unbiased.)

Here's something I also posted on the EEVBlog Forum, as I think it's relevant:
I found this quote, from a PHD who actually seems to understand battery chemistry and underlying motivations, interesting:
*Quote
*"...All the marketing, videos and posts by the company in question still show that they do not have the necessary understanding of battery chemistry which is needed. If they interchangeably mistake voltage for power than this might sadly be enough to fool venture capitalists but it will not help their product at all. 

Yes it is amazing that you can develop a boost converter with such a small footprint nowadays, but this does really not change the physics and chemistry which is responsible for a hugely nonlinear relationship between battery voltage and remaining energy in the battery. If you take a piece of copper and a piece of zinc and press it into a lemon, you get a battery with quite a high voltage, but there really is not much energy which could be extracted this way. The same is true for the chemistry of a regular AA battery: the voltage is determined by the chemistry and the energy stored is determined by the amount of remaining metal and chemicals. 

Also, as Dave Jones brilliantly explained lately, the current you need to extract from the battery to deliver the same power from the boost converter, rises towards the very end of the lifetime of a battery, making the internal series resistance more and more working against you. 

There is no significant energy left in an alkaline AA battery, once the voltage has dropped below 1 V, even though this is still 67% of the original voltage - but the anode metal is consumed at this point! 

There is only one party here who really wants to make money from this story, and it's neither the battery manufacturers, nor is it Dave Jones. 

Uwe Zimmermann, 
PhD, Senior lecturer in electronics @ Uppsala University"​

- http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/brians-brain/4440136/The-Batteriser--scam-or-savior-


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 4, 2015)

samgab said:


> (That poster above (David P tech) who is a new sign-up to this forum is almost certainly the same person or part of the same group who have been active on youtube and other forums, and are affiliated with Batteriser. Expect them to post an attack on my post here if they're still monitoring this thread.


If anyone from there with any wit had been monitoring this thread, one wonders why they would get someone to write post #66 in the first place.
Recognising a lost cause should be one of the skills of even an amateur shill.

Outside possibly the odd niche, the target market for batteriser seems to be people who know sod-all about batteries, which doesn't seem to be the case here.



samgab said:


> If it wasn't for all of the shady stuff going on and the deliberate attempts to mislead, I'd be interested in this product, more as a curiosity than because I believe it has any practical use; but as it is, I've observed what's been going on and I'm really put off.


Absolutely. Well said.


----------



## ForrestChump (Sep 4, 2015)

They should rename it BatteriLeaker.

At the end of the day, the'll make a few mill and then it will simmer down with 6,000 1-2 star reviews on AMAZON. 

What a marvel.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Sep 5, 2015)

uk_caver said:


> If anyone from there with any wit had been monitoring this thread, one wonders why they would get someone to write post #66 in the first place.
> Recognising a lost cause should be one of the skills of even an amateur shill.



I don't think the shills realized this is an educated forum that knows about batteries. They probably thought they could post crap and people would take it at face value. Most of the time, they probably get away with it.


----------



## magellan (Sep 5, 2015)

MidnightDistortions said:


> NiMH rechargeables was i think was supposed to replace alkalines but unfortunately some people can't be bothered by recharging their cells or they think they don't work because they don't know how to care for them. Then to top it off NiMHs (the standard HSD ones) self discharge too much making them a bad replacement for alkalines since they can be used over a longer period of time but alkalines are still single use cells. Eneloops are gaining popularity though so that's a good thing but many are still on alkalines because it's all they know how to use, just buy them and throw them in your device. Kinda talked about this in a maglite post on why Mags only recommend alkalines.
> 
> So it's like oh, people want to reduce battery consumption but instead of actually researching, learning and using NiMHs or other rechargeable battery technology, they try to siphon more energy out of alkalines. To me it doesn't make sense but somehow to some folks it's logical to them to try to get more use out of alkalines. Back in the 80's and 90's these alkaline adapters would have been more beneficial but alkalines are a dated product that should have run it's course once the Eneloops redefined NiMH technology.



As far as alkalines go, not me. Due to the knowledge I've gained on this forum (plus reading a book or two) I've made the transition almost 100% to using lithium ion and NiMH secondaries. With LSD cell technology like Eneloops having improved greatly since the first versions, there's no reason for me to go back to alkalines. At first I was just interested in doing something more green and eco friendly and maybe saving a bit on batteries but then it became more of a hobby, and as a result have spent far more on batteries and chargers than I ever would have saved just on moving to rechargeables, but as CPF members know, that's another story.


----------



## magellan (Sep 5, 2015)

TinderBox (UK) said:


> Virtually everything works with rechargeable battery`s now, it`s eco friendly.
> 
> A bit off topic, In the UK, it is illegal to sell a vaculme cleaner over 1400watts, and in a couple of years that is going down to 700-800watts, so manufactures are forced to produce more efficient design`s rather than thowing more and more watts at it to improve the suction.
> 
> John



LOL

Maybe this is why health statistics show allergies and asthma are increasing exponentially in the more advanced countries like the UK, Europe, and the U.S.


----------



## magellan (Sep 5, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> It saddens me that many news outlets seem to copy the marketing blurb without even the most basic of fact checking.
> 
> For example "8x longer" translates into "800% vs. 100% duration". That is *7*00% longer, not 800%. But somewhere, someone translates "8x" into "800% _longer_", and many, many other sites copy that without even thinking about it. For example in my country there's this news site Nu.nl which caters to a million+ audience. And their mention of this reads like a straight copy from the site this thread starts with. Even if you can't very the actual performance of the device, you can still read carefully through the claims, right? Basic math isn't rocket science!
> 
> ...



I haven't followed this whole discussion, but my impression is this invention is the brainchild of one person, or a few people, and it didn't come out of a major research lab associated with a university, high powered government lab like Argonne or Sandia, or a private think tank like Bell Labs or Xerox PARC, and known for research in battery technology.

Not that this means it couldn't happen outsude such venues but I admit to being biased in that direction.


----------

