Slashdot Mirror


Debunking the Batteriser's Claims

An anonymous reader writes: Last week we discussed news about the "Batteriser," a small device that fits around a battery and extends its lifetime. Many of us were skeptical, particularly with the claim that it could extend battery life up to 8x. Now, David L. Jones at the EEVBlog explains exactly why the device won't be as good as its creators claim. The technology itself, he says, does actually work at extending battery life, and has existed for a long time. What this company seems to have done is just shrink it down to a more useful size. Unfortunately, their claims about when a battery stop working and how much energy is left don't really hold up. Batteroo, the company making the Batteriser, claims products stop working when a battery's voltage drops below 1.3v, but a simple test of common household gadgets finds that to be untrue. Further, the percentage of energy left in the battery after this cutoff can vary wildly. Sometimes it will be 80%, but most of the time it won't, and it's frequently 20% or lower for Alkaline batteries. Jones writes, "I'm genuinely baffled as to why Batteroo would need to resort to claims like 8 times life. This thing would still sell like hot cakes if they claimed realistic practical figures. 50% increase in your battery life? – great, countless people would still buy it at the super low price point it's at."

103 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Baffled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I'm genuinely baffled as to why Batteroo would need to resort to claims like 8 times life."

    Really? You are genuinely baffled why a company might exaggerate their claims? Really?

    1. Re:Baffled? by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, there is a difference between a realistic-yet-slightly-exaggerated claim like most companies give, and Billy Mays 'as-seen-on-TV' territory...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Baffled? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I am. Because if people go into it expecting an 8x increase and only get a 50% increase they write terrible reviews for it everywhere and the idea spreads that it's snake oil. If they go into it expecting a 50% increase and get it, they'll be quite happy.

      One shoots themselves in the foot by going too far with their claims. Often it's better to underpromise and overdeliver.

      Anyway, I can think of some applications where you might get 8x, or even more. I've owned electronics which don't run on alkalines at all and require NiMH because regular alkalines suffer too much voltage drop under high peak current loads and thus you can't turn the device on at all. In such a case the battery life increase of a voltage booster could be basically "infinite", in that useful life goes from "zero" to "nonzero". I've also had electronics that work with alkalines, but just barely. In such cases you might get 8x (or 2x, or 50x... it all depends on the device).

      On the other hand, if people use one of these in, say, a TV remote or flashlight, yeah, they'll be really disappointed with the 8x claim.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    3. Re:Baffled? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Well that's units of energy per charge, so not too bad a phrase for lay reading

    4. Re:Baffled? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He needs to sell as many of these as he can in as short a period as possible - there will be no repeat customers because it will take almost no time at all for other companies to copy this thing and undercut his price. There is not much IP here - just a slick miniaturization.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Baffled? by zacherynuk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try using Lithium batteries (Not Lithium Ion) - these are superb in smoke detectors. (The irony being they have a small explosion risk in some usage case, though smoke detectors aren't one of them)

    6. Re:Baffled? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I read it as "Most new batteries contain enough energy that internal resistance doesn't lower potential below 1.5 V."

    7. Re:Baffled? by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      I think you have a bigger problem at that point, like, say, the FIRE?!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    8. Re:Baffled? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Voltage is a unit of potential, not energy. A 1.5 V AA alkaline cell might have the same energy capacity (watt-hours = 3600 Joules) as a 1.2 V AA NiMH one. A 1.5 V AA cell has less energy than a 1.5 V D cell.

      Batteries are commonly rated with a "capacity," (often in milliAmp-hours, mAh) which is neither voltage nor energy, but a measure which assumes a constant current draw, with varying power delivery. That doesn't apply in this situation, since the draw on the battery would increase as the voltage drops.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:Baffled? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just go with it. I'm an EE and if I tried to over-pedant everything wrong I encountered in a day I'd starve to death.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    10. Re:Baffled? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Well as far as I understand from reading some battery charger spec sheets, many modern chargers actually provide a constant current rather than voltage for charging, stopping when the voltage required to maintain that current rises too high, which indicates its level of charge.

      So while voltage is not charge, its entirely possible, and common, to measure the charge in the battery by relating it directly to a particular voltage, so in that context it is actually a measure of charge because it has a known relationship when used correctly.

      In fact, this same measure was often used with lead acid batteries, especially car batteries, since measuring output voltage is often the most accessible way to determine whether is taking a charge or not.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:Baffled? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can sympathize, Granted, I live in a house, so I've always just unplugged the smoke detector with the low battery. But for some reason, they always seem to do this in the middle of the night. It's annoying as hell trying to get back to sleep after you find the one that's chirping and then unplug it, remove the battery and put it someplace you won't hear it until it finally stops chirping.

      Get some 10 year "smoke detector batteries" My smoke detectors are hard wired, and the batteries are only there in case of a power failure. Since smoke detectors should also be replaced every ten years, I use a permanent marker to date the battery cover and replace all detectors and batteries at the same time.

    12. Re:Baffled? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      "I'm genuinely baffled as to why Batteroo would need to resort to claims like 8 times life."

      Really? You are genuinely baffled why a company might exaggerate their claims? Really?

      Smiling Bob is their ad agent. And, I'm sure the "shipping and handling" charges will be quite reasonable.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    13. Re:Baffled? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Funny

      1 star review: Smoke detector stopped sounding alarm when fire finally reached it and destroyed it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    14. Re:Baffled? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Two words: Because marketing.

    15. Re:Baffled? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      But for some reason, they always seem to do this in the middle of the night.

      The reason is that the house is colder at night. The lower temperature slows down the reactions in the battery and the voltage drops slightly. When it warms up, the reactions speed up and voltage increases again. So it's not you imagining it, there's actually a reason for the annoyance!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Baffled? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 2

      I thought the idea was to make covered parking lots with solar panels, and that the road ones would work on places like stadiums that are only used once or twice a week.

    17. Re:Baffled? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good luck with "same thing, only smaller".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:Baffled? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Well, lithium fire is almost impossible to extinguish without specialized equipment (class D extinguisher).
      A single battery in a house fire probably won't make a difference but it certainly won't help.

    19. Re:Baffled? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Lithium batteries aren't good for smoke detectors because their voltage drops off much more quickly than alkaline batteries. That means the low battery chirping sound will only last a short amount of time before the battery dies.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    20. Re:Baffled? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      3 star review: got five of these news fangled triple sensor (heat, gas, particulates) jobs dotted around my house, I still have a better nose for when my wife makes toast than these bloody things.That don't go off if I hold a bit of smouldering paper directly underneath them. I've just tried it, they're fucking useless.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    21. Re:Baffled? by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

      If you test your smoke alarm every week and change the battery every 3 years, as you should, this is not a problem. - besides the chirping from my experience still goes on for several days at least.

      All the 10 year (and similar) disposable fixed-cell sealed smoke alarms use lithium batteries.
      These are probably the best bet to use if you are at all worried about battery management. They come with silencer buttons also

    22. Re:Baffled? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      smothering it with sand or anhydrous sodium chloride is the only safe way.

      I have a small bucket of sand under my desk for just such an eventuality. I have many laptops and other gadgets with lithium batteries. I'd rather look silly with a bucket of kitty grits under my desk than wake up from a catnap with my hair on fire.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    23. Re:Baffled? by suutar · · Score: 1

      *shrug* it's at least as good as stuff that gets patented now.

    24. Re:Baffled? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      It is energy per unit charge as I said; a volt is joules per coulomb. The mAh is just measuring charge. An amp has units of charge per unit time. Multiply that by time and you get purely charge, we're essentially back to coulombs times a constant.

    25. Re:Baffled? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      The 3V button battery will indeed give each electron twice as much energy as the D cell. That is indisputable. The charge capacity and internal resistance of the batteries will differ.

      Voltage under a known load will indeed tell how much charge is left in a given type of battery,

    26. Re:Baffled? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      While that is certainly true (even I have a patent), no amount of IP protection is going to keep knockoffs at bay when the process is literally a miniaturization using a contract manufacturer - probably in China.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:Baffled? by msauve · · Score: 1

      " a volt is joules per coulomb"

      Play your games with units all you want, but once you understand them you'll know that one cannot determine the energy contained in any random battery from only its voltage.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    28. Re:Baffled? by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      It amazes me that stores sell monster packs of AA batteries (like 30 or 40) that people must obviously be buying, instead of more people using NiMH. I've had a couple NiMH batteries fail unusually early, but most have been working for years through dozens of recharges. Definitely the cheaper option in the long run.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    29. Re:Baffled? by inflex · · Score: 1

      A shame you posted anonymously, would like to congratulate you on a technically correct and sensible post.

    30. Re:Baffled? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      they should go off if two sensors are tripped. Gas & particulates are two sensors that should be making the alarm go nuts.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    31. Re:Baffled? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      they should not go off when burning a small bit of paper

      Clearly GP needs to do a proper test by burning his house down.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Marketers and jouranlists exaggerating? by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    What is the world coming to?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Marketers and jouranlists exaggerating? by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be honest to the marketers this is a dog of a product. It is extremely hard to sell people a product that gives them some kind of mild intermittent benefit that is not immediate and in their face all the time. The other problem is that the product self-selects penny pincher type 'economy' customers, and these are just horrible horrible people to attempt to sell anything too.

      I imagine it would be easier to sell batteries wrapped in cat stickers than a product like this.

    2. Re:Marketers and jouranlists exaggerating? by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      If the summary is accurate, they're promising sixteen times the typical benefit. That's well beyond exaggeration.

      --
      Visit the
    3. Re:Marketers and jouranlists exaggerating? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I imagine it would be easier to sell batteries wrapped in cat stickers than a product like this.

      Sir, you are a genius. All they have to do is remodel this device so that it looks like a long, slinky cat has itself wrapped around the battery. Call it the "battery cat". It'll be like printing money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Marketers and jouranlists exaggerating? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Your name is all wrong ... it should be CATTERY (tm)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Marketers and jouranlists exaggerating? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      (applies for Trademark)

      Oh, and thanks, I send you pictures of my new Lambo....(:

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    6. Re:Marketers and jouranlists exaggerating? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your name is all wrong ... it should be CATTERY (tm)

      Well obviously the laziest good name would be CATTERIZER. s/B/C/ and you're in there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Longerer by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

    > It will last 8x as long!"

    That'll learn ya to cut-and-paste boilerplate from an ExtenZ ad.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  4. I still want one by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    If only to see if it works.

    I have a battery tester and when batteries stop working, I sometimes check and easily see they still have some power left, if not enough to run the device.

    Even if this device extends battery life only 10% it is probably worth it.

    Of course, the real question is why don't they build it into the batteries/devices in the first place?

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:I still want one by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. I fully expect that getting one of these is going to be a waste of money. But, I'm going to buy a pair of AA sized batteroos, for testing. I want to see for myself if it works. THEN, I'll write a review or ten, on Amazon and other places. If I see a 10% improvement, my review will say so - if I see 800% improvement, or a 0% improvement, my reviews will reflect that.

      And, yes, your trailing question is a damned good question. If the battery manufacturers can improve the life of their batteries with this, then WHY NOT build it in? Or - the device manufacturers, for that matter.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:I still want one by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it extends the battery life by only 10%, it is almost certainly *not* worth it. Priced at $2.50, it's appearance suggests a relatively flimsy product that's unlikely to last very long before you break it. Looking at the most popular AA batteries on Amazon, price per cell is just 24 cents.

      That means a 10% increase in battery life is saving you 2.4 cents per cell, so you'd have to run 104+ cells through each Batterizer you need to buy before you first break even. (And most products, in my experience, use at least two cells, suggesting that you'll need multiple Batterizers and will have to run multiple hundreds of cells through them before you break even.)

      Add in the fact that despite Batterizer's claims, the deeper you drain a battery, by far the more likely it is to leak, coupled with the fact that the kinds of things that are likely to leave any significant power in the cells in my experience tend to be those which drain power very slowly, and the chances of you saving any money with Batterizer are zip. This is a product for morons who lack the ability to think critically: No more, no less.

    3. Re:I still want one by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Your question is answered several times in the article. Well designed devices probably DO use a DC-DC boost converter, but they design a cutoff at around 1V to avoid damaging rechargeable batteries. This also means the batteriser will probably not produce significant gains in those devices because the devices -don't- stop working at 1.3V (under load) as claimed by batteriser.

      That, and the fact that this device kills the battery meter. Your gizmo's internal battery meter is going to read 100% right up until the point it reads zero.

      TANSTAAFL

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:I still want one by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course, the real question is why don't they build it into the batteries/devices in the first place?

      Doing this efficiently is expensive, per amp anyway. A cheap boost converter is wasteful. It would make batteries much more expensive, or they would only be efficient near maximum output.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:I still want one by miknix · · Score: 2

      This is a product for morons who lack the ability to think critically: No more, no less.

      You don't know anything about what you are talking about! I'm using these batterisers with my CD rewinder device right now and it allows to rewind 5 more CDs using a single battery! How great is this?

    6. Re:I still want one by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      It does work, but not as advertised and many devices do have such converters in them. They trade current for voltage but they cannot give you more total power than is available. For a device that is already using it's own converter the efficiency losses could make things worse not better. The product is a classic example of how to get rich selling as little as possible for as much as possible to the large part of our population who are so technologically illiterate that everything just seems like magic to them, so they will believe almost anything. See Current and Voltage, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and DC-DC Boost converters https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re:I still want one by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, doing so wouldn't "double the price". You may have something if you just say "cost increase", but not with "double the price".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:I still want one by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Even worse, they specifically show someone putting a Batteriser on a battery that is running low, and magically the battery meter is full again!

      Well yeah of course it is, since battery meters go by remaining voltage. So if you boost it back up to 1.5V, of course it's going to read full. Massive marketing red flag right there.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  5. Debunking the debunker by suso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't work for the company, but to give some support of the claim that some electronics stop working at 1.3V. I've removed a lot of "dead" batteries from kids electronic toys and when testing them with a volt meter found that many of them were still putting out between 1V and 1.4V. I save anything that is over 1V because I sometimes use them with hobby electronics projects. Sometimes its only one battery in a set that has died as well, but of course that can just be fixed by finding the dead battery and only replacing that one.

    My question about the batteriser is if its reusable or not. Also, I could see this thing causing quite a few more battery leaks than usual.

    1. Re:Debunking the debunker by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've routinely tested my batteries for years, and only a handful of kids toys died at 1.3 to 1.35V, but they were in the extreme minority. And the summary is wrong, anyway -- Batterizer didn't claim 1.3 volts, they claimed 1.35 to 1.4 volts, which is utter nonsense. I've never seen a single product I own that died at 1.4 volts. (And the Batterizer PR folks didn't say "some" products, they said "most" or even all, which is a bald-faced lie.)

    2. Re:Debunking the debunker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? Simply because the battery measures 1.4V or 1.3V doesn't mean that the voltage under load is anywhere near that high.

    3. Re:Debunking the debunker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've removed a lot of "dead" batteries from kids electronic toys and when testing them with a volt meter found that many of them were still putting out between 1V and 1.4V.

      He directly addresses that in TFA. Voltage will measure higher when the battery is not under load. He even speculates that this is how they got the 1.3V figure in the first place: the battery was putting out 1.1V or less under load in the device, but when removed it measured at >=1.3V. In that situation this device will probably be able to extract a little more energy and keep the high-load device running a little longer, just as you extract a little more energy by using them in a lower-load hobby device. But it won't be anywhere near 8x, or even 1.5x.

    4. Re:Debunking the debunker by Rei · · Score: 2

      Leaks or overheating is something that would concern me. If you're compensating for reduced voltage by drawing more current then that means more ohmic heating.

      How much of a problem this would be in the real world, I really don't know. I assume (or at least hope) they have limits on their product to prevent overheating.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    5. Re:Debunking the debunker by omnichad · · Score: 2

      And yet any rechargeable battery puts out 1.2V (the average voltage of a 1.5V alkaline under load) and most devices allow rechargeables to be used.

    6. Re:Debunking the debunker by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      I haven't done the measurements, but I believe once an alkaline battery gets down below 1.3V, the drop off with load becomes quite dramatic. So while it may read something like 1.2V under no load, voltage will drop like a rock as soon as current starts flowing.

    7. Re:Debunking the debunker by jjhues7676 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is reusable. It just snaps around the battery.

    8. Re:Debunking the debunker by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You are probably just seeing the voltage rise once the load is removed. Battery voltage falls with the current draw, so the cell might only produce 1.1V in the device when being used, but as soon as you turn it off and take the battery out it comes back up to 1.1V.

      That's why testing with a volt meter is fairly pointless. You need a proper battery tester or at least a load resistor.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Debunking the debunker by oobayly · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even worse, if you watch their promo video - Dave mentions this at the end of his vblog - it goes actually says:

      Did you know that every dead battery you've every thrown away had only used up to 20% of battery life.

      That's an out and out lie.

    10. Re:Debunking the debunker by hattig · · Score: 1

      Yet rechargeable AAs work at 1.2V and most products don't have problems with them...

      It makes more sense for this tech to be installed in the devices that require that 1.4V+ supply rather than be external.

      And in that case, the tech needs to be cheap, and we talking cents for a device cheap here.

      And just stop buying non-rechargeables already!

    11. Re:Debunking the debunker by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Actually there is a rather hillarious video out on youtube, don't have time to find it now, I suppose someone else will and besmirch my upbringing for not posting it.

      The entire video is based on people not understanding the concept of load. Basically the guy builds this massive (and by massive I mean "compared to its output") electrical generator in a basic config like you might do in order to demonstrate the princible of electrical generation rather than actually produce power.

      Anyway, the entire thing boils down to him taking measurements with it under load, then removing the load and taking measurements, and comparing his results to show that his device was "over unity" because of some bullshit about magnets. (its hard to remember the BS he was spewing, I just remember laughing my ass off while I watched his "test")

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:Debunking the debunker by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Maybe he means it was "used-up to 20% of battery life," which means the exact opposite of the way it seems at first glance. Still doesn't explain the 8x claim though.

    13. Re:Debunking the debunker by utahjazz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Even worse, if you watch their promo video - Dave mentions this at the end of his vblog - it goes actually says:

      Did you know that every dead battery you've every thrown away had only used up to 20% of battery life.

      That's an out and out lie.

      Not true. According to E=MC^2, a single AA battery contains 0.023 kg * c^2 = 2x10^15 Joules of energy. When have you ever used more than 20% of that!!?!?!

    14. Re:Debunking the debunker by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Toys are a bit of a special case. Motorised ones draw a LOT of current and so you're better off with something with low internal resistance like NiCad or NiMH. This device probably won't do much since the limiting thing is how much power you can get out of the battery in those cases and that's determined by the internal resistance.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:Debunking the debunker by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but to give some support of the claim that some electronics stop working at 1.3V. I've removed a lot of "dead" batteries from kids electronic toys and when testing them with a volt meter found that many of them were still putting out between 1V and 1.4V.

      I won't. The single most popular rechargeable chemistry produces cells which have a nominal voltage of 1.2V. The number of devices on the market which refuse to work on a NiMH battery are minuscule.

      Now one thing that may be of interest is the concept of internal resistance, and no load voltage. When you pull batteries out of the device and then test their voltage you're reading no-load voltage. This will be higher than the voltage under load due to the internal resistance of the battery. Different chemistry have different internal resistance characteristics while being discharged as well. e.g. If you're testing the no-load voltage of a Lithium AA then you'll be very close to the voltage under load for all but really power thirsty devices. Alkaline is anywhere up to 4 times worse, NiCd up to 10 times.

      So before you give too much weight to the claim, power on the toy. Make sure it's running, or at least trying to run, and then put the volt meter across the battery terminals and find out at what point it REALLY dies.

    16. Re:Debunking the debunker by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That is largely because your voltmeter has an incredibly large internal resistance. Try putting the battery under load to test it's actual output.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re:Debunking the debunker by Some+nick+or+other · · Score: 1

      I make batteries from uranium and then put them in my reactor when they're dead, you insensitive clod!

    18. Re:Debunking the debunker by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should stop buying only poorly-designed crap.

  6. NiCd by tverbeek · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Considering that a standard NiCd AA cell has a voltage of 1.2V, , the notion that most devices will stop working with a voltage below 1.3V is rather obviously false.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:NiCd by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And NiMH as well. That's because the average voltage of a 1.5V alkaline under load is only around 1.2V.

    2. Re:NiCd by Rei · · Score: 1

      Electric circuits aren't that simple. When you put a load on a battery there's a voltage drop. NiMH have much lower internal resistance than alkaline and experience much less voltage drop and are thus able to handle higher current loads much better. When you see a figure of "1.2V" or "1.5V", that's in a no-load state. A "1.3V alkaline battery" will yield a much lower voltage in almost any realistic load state than a 1.2V NiMH.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    3. Re: NiCd by ledow · · Score: 1

      Strange. I've used NiCD and NiMH for years.

      The only problems I ever see are that they don't hold charge as well so they are useless for clocks and similar low-draw, long-duration items. I've yet to see a product refuse to work with them.

      And, I mean, seriously - hundreds of devices, everything from electronics kits as a youngster (where I discovered that NiCD short-circuit quite beautifully to become tiny heaters), every toy for my daughter, every gadget I own (Wii remotes, TV remotes, obscure handheld consoles, etc.).

      Yet to find something that doesn't like a rechargeable. No, you don't get the same longevity out of them necessarily, but they work. I mean, honestly, I always laugh at the "do not use rechargeable batteries" warnings on some devices that I see. Have yet to see it make any difference.

  7. Internal resistance by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 3, Informative

    When you measure terminal voltage, it's going to vary, depending on the load you put on while you measure, and the battery's internal resistance. So 1.3V with no load is different than 1.3V with a 100mA (for example) load. Put another way, 1.3V without a load may translate to much less when the battery is put into the system. At the end of the day, when the battery starts to die, you don't have much energy left. You can maybe prolong it for a bit with one of these gadgets, but it's like sucking the last slurps of a smoothie...pretty soon, you're going to be out of juice.

  8. Re:as a batteriser engineer, let me debunk a bit by omnichad · · Score: 1

    That's the problem you found with this?

  9. Something smells fishy... by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IIRC, didn''t they have some article about someone breaking into their company and stealing product samples? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    However, lets be real here. This voltage booster is just a mini autoformer, using a coil, a transistor, and a capacitor. This technology isn't new. MPPT controllers for solar units use this.

    What is new is the form factor. However, to boost volts, there has to be a trade... and what is trades is amperage, so that a battery with a voltage drop now has to put out more current, which only accelerates the discharge process.

    Of course, there is the downside... high amps being demanded, without some form of fusing or limiter can result in leakage, or even worse, fire, as a potential failure mode.

    I vote no on this. Instead, my recommendation is just to spend the 30 bones and get an Apple Battery Charger or something similar, and some rechargeable batteries. This is a far safer option, and no part of the system is being driven past its engineered tolerances.

    1. Re:Something smells fishy... by mlts · · Score: 1

      An autoformer is a device used often by RV-ers here in the US which turns lower voltage at an outlet into a usable one, around 120 VAC. The cost is higher amperage, since it is a voltage multiplier, but given the choice between using more amps versus burning out compressors and appliances due to low voltage, the former is a lot more palatable.

  10. NiMH starts at 1.2V by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    The old NiMH rechargeables start at 1.2V fully charged. If devices stop working below 1.3V, then they can't use these rechargables at all.

    However, a "1.5V boost converter sleeve" on a NiMH does make an interesting case....

    1. Re:NiMH starts at 1.2V by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The old NiMH rechargeables start at 1.2V fully charged.

      All my chargers will overcharge all of these cells to a reasonable amount, any good charger (most aren't) will decrease the charging voltage differential when the charging current drops so that they don't overcharge. And more complicated things I don't understand :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: NiMH starts at 1.2V by Agripa · · Score: 1

      This is true for lithium and lead-acid cells but NiCd and NiHM cells tolerate discharge to 0 volts just fine.

  11. EEVblog at YouTube by jones_supa · · Score: 2

    If you haven't yet checked it out, Dave's YouTube channel is quite interesting stuff if you are an electronics geek or want to learn more about the topic.

  12. Joule Thief by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (oops accidentally posted A/C)

    I've coincidentally been running a battery experiment using a joule thief on a 1.5v Energizer battery (starting voltage 1.621v)

    The LED and resistor I use would normally draw about 20mA from a battery, but run at 3v, requiring 2 AA batteries, and running for around 5 or 6 days in total.

    Through the joule thief (similar, I am guessing the to guts of the device), I know that I can run the same LED down to 0.450mV (with a much larger current draw)... but since it basically consists of spikes of power (which can reach 5-12v) with a very short duty cycle, I can run off a single AA battery for some time.

    As I use the thief in my own battery experiments (think edison cells), I decided to run an AA down and chart the voltages. I'm currently on day 10, and have made it down to 1.257v I think it will drop off quite quickly around 1.0 or 0.9v, but you can see I've easily doubled the servicable life span. At this point it has only dropped ~20mV per day, so I could possibly get 10 more servicable days out of this battery for the purposes of running an LED... so we're up to around 5X the service life.

    I did not major engineering to make my thief, and it isn't particularly well made.. so I think 8X life for an LED is very possible with the data I have.

    EXCEPT... I'm just making light, for a human, who can't see that it's not actually "ON" all the time. This is a very simple circuit and can easily handle the duty cycle. I have some concerns about running a microprocessor or similar toy with the device without damage.

    ADDITIONALLY.. batteries can swell when they get very low voltage, and all sorts of nastiness can occur. I'd be cautious to drain one to the minimum voltage for my thief... or at least keep it on a glass plate in case of leakage.

    --
    meh
  13. build your own by nadaou · · Score: 1

    It's pretty easy to make your own one of these, you can make it a voltage doubler too so that you can drive LEDs.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=joul...

    --
    ~.~
    I'm a peripheral visionary.
    1. Re:build your own by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And, amazingly enough, the marketing literature even agrees with you. Their secret sauce is the packaging - getting it to slip over an AA cell so it can be used anywhere.

      They even point out that most battery powered devices actually have this circuit built into them. The batterizer just adjusts the parameters differently - optimizing battery life over perhaps some battery longevity factors and the inability to use an internal battery meter to gauge capacity.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. Still useless... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most modern electronics already do what this does. For example Xbox 360 and Xbox One controllers will suck nearly every last drop of power out of the batteries.

    If your device shuts off when they claim, it's either from the 80's or is poorly designed.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Still useless... by chasm22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah well my wireless mouse doesn't suck every drop. Instead it will start randomly freezing,etc at well above 1.1v. Gigabyte M7700B.

      I'd like to know what you call sucking every last drop.

      And how about a cite for most modern electronics. My Dish remote certainly doesn't suck every last drop. The drivers in my flashlights have voltage cutoffs well above whatever you define as every last drop.

      Furthermore, IMO, if you're using electronics that handle lower voltages well, you should be using rechargeables. The only time I don't is on the 'modern' electronics I own that don't like to see voltages less than1.2v or so.

  15. Most work fine though by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    A good way to tell is with nickle metal hydride rechargables. They have a 1.2v cell voltage. So does a device work with them? Then it'll work on less than 1.3v. Of the things in my house that take batteries, all but one have worked with them. That device, a swifer wetjet, specifically says no rechargables so I haven't tried.

    NiMH batters work well in devices including, but not limited to, remotes, wireless microphones, EOTech sights, laser pointers, cordless phones, headphone amplifiers, and wireless mice.

  16. Re:as a batteriser engineer, let me debunk a bit by oobayly · · Score: 1

    I've started taking complaints about bad grammar, spelling mistakes and the like as implicit agreement with the post - obviously the complainer can't find a logical error and has to resort to complaining about the delivery. I'm not a fan of spelling mistakes, but I make enough of them myself so it'd be hypocritical to call people out.

    On the other hand, I tend not to even bother reading vast posts or those without punctuation - I make the assumption that the argument is likely to be as incoherent as the writing.

  17. I call bullshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Batteroo, the company making the Batteriser, claims products stop working when a battery's voltage drops below 1.3v

    NiCd recharcheables are 1.2v, so clearly they're talking bollocks.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:I call bullshit by chasm22 · · Score: 1

      Uh, they're referring to alkaline batteries. I'm pretty sure you would just recharge a NiCd. On the downside, most the NiCd's I've seen are AAA size and even if they are their voltage makes them unusable in things like wireless mice.

    2. Re:I call bullshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. Is there some part of "products stop working when..." that's giving you particular problems here?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Lay schmay. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Well that's units of energy per charge

    A volt is indeed equivalent to a joule per coulomb, but where do they say how many coulombs it can hold? It's still garbage.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Lay schmay. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Not at all, the problem this product attempts to address is the cessation of function for many applications purely due to voltage under load becoming too low even though the battery has plenty of "charge" left.

  19. Re:Alright by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Mine is AAA, thank you.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  20. Extra Safety Measure by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Well, except when the smoke detector catches fire, like in a fire.

    In that case if you are still around then clearly the beeping did not wake you up so perhaps the sound of the exploding battery might. See, it's really just an extra safety measure.

  21. Claims by chasm22 · · Score: 1

    Not sure why he is blaming Batteriser for the claims.

    This comes straight from a blog post at phys.org.; "When we get a new battery it is 1.5 volts, when we use it in a device it goes down to 1.3 volts under load condition, at that point we consider it to be dead and throw it away," said Dr. Kiumars Parvin, professor of physics at San Jose State University.

    It seems that the claim is from a physics professor, not Batteriser. Or maybe Batteriser started using making the claim based on the comments of a professor.

    Moreover, the same blog post goes on to say; "Prof. Parvin said that in a lab test of the sleeve, "we confirmed that the Batteriser taps into the 80 percent of energy that is usually thrown away."

    So we apparently have a professor of physics saying one thing and someone else disagreeing. I can't say which is right, but it's clear to me that the company is only stating what the professor has already stated. So if this person is debunking anything, it isn't the claims of a company but the claims of a professor.

    I think it all hinges on the condition of batteries when they are discarded. Period. Not the condition they might be in if the person had attempted to extract every last bit of energy, but actual real world condition. It seems to me that I've read stuff concerning this before by researchers who have actually studied discarded batteries. But I couldn't find anything today.

    1. Re:Claims by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      in contact with Prof. Parvin right now, will update.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  22. Re:Joule Thief by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    Correct: 0.450V

    --
    meh
  23. Re:Joule Thief by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    Hence the concerns.

    Now, this does open up an interesting thought about creating microprocessors that can work with spikes of power, holding state... much more complex, but able to run on frighteningly small pulses of energy.

    --
    meh
  24. Re:Joule Thief by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    Kinda like I said: Great for an LED flashlight, and that's about it. (possibly a motor driven as well - think old-time casette player or *ahem* personal "massage" device).

    --
    meh
  25. Boost convertor Efficiencies by Eddy_D · · Score: 1

    Not mentioned in the article hare at Slashdot (but Dave talks about it at the end of his EEVBlog so stick around) is the efficiency of a boost DC-DC convertor at low currents. At best, this device has a 50% efficiency which, to quote Dave on this, is "pissing away 50% of his battery" just by having this thing attached. This alone means that the claim is outright impossible, on any normal device that just sips power from the battery, like a wall clock.

    --
    - I stole your sig.
  26. That's it! by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

    This is their secret marketing plan. Make outrageous claims, and all the do-gooders on the Internet will HAVE to buy one to debunk the claims!

  27. Not tested by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    That guy doesn't actually test the device, just tries to tell us why the claims are too optimistic.
    http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06...
    I'd rather see real, objective testing using all sorts of typical loads and battery types.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  28. Re:Joule Thief by Agripa · · Score: 1

    Linear Technology had ads in ED and EDN when they released their low voltage boost converters which could start at 1.2 volts and operate down to 0.65 volts. Their advertising phrase was "how to suck a battery dry" with a picture of the battery rolled up like a toothpaste tube.