This is terrific......someone here should have come up with this.

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-batteroo-batteriser-sleeve-battery-life.html

 

It's easy when the obvious is pointed out, isn't it?

I hope that it is not another false alarm.

 

"Batteriser lets you tap into the remaining 80 percent of energy,"

I've got this bridge for sale too. 1.3 volts is not the 'dead zone' in most real 1.5 volt cells in heavy use and plenty of modern devices already have converters (to handle a wide range of battery types) to account for voltage drop during operation. Now if it reads 1.3 instead of 1.5 with no load then it's just about dead (electrochemically) and nothing can suck more energy from it.

High current discharge rates.
http://www.powerstream.com/AA-tests.htm

 

Déjà vu

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/looks-like-a-joule-thief-for-aa-cells.112057/#post-866564

 

Déjà vu

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/looks-like-a-joule-thief-for-aa-cells.112057/#post-866564

Didn't see that thread, must have gotten lost in the 'Orange haze'.

 

I'm calling bunk.

It's trivially easy for them to demonstrate their claims. Take a circuit that draws a normal battery to a non-functioning point in one hour and then show that the same circuit runs 8x at long with their gadget installed on a new battery of the same type. If it actually worked, then they would already have national and international coverage by nearly every media outlet. Remember Cold Fusion? It doesn't take much at all to get the media excited.

As an aside, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that Phys.org is a rag website that is probably owned and operated by Weekly World News or similar.

 

The Weekly World News actually has useful information.
http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/8069/how-to-sell-your-soul-to-the-devil

 

An even better -- or at least easy -- way was made available about five years ago:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/04/15/online-shoppers-unknowingly-sold-souls/

 

Hello,

Dave Jones debunked this product, the so called "Batterizer".
It's mostly hype. The company makes false claims for one thing.

One of the main problems (not including a lot of others) is that they claim an 800 percent increase in energy due to the wasted 80 percent, but that's based on a device that cuts out at, are you ready for this, 1.4 volts !
Seriously, if your device cuts out at 1.4v there's something wrong with it.
But to add to the funny part, they claim this is when the device cuts out at 1.3 volts !
Anyone can read a battery data sheet and quickly see otherwise.

Now there could be some benefits if the device cuts out at 1.3v, but Dave tested several devices and not a single one cut out at 1.3v, or even 1.2v and most of them made it to 1.1v or even less before failing. So the energy gain is not real, and the thing can actually cause the battery to run down faster than normal.

So the bottom line is it may help a little for some badly designed products, but for the most part it wont help. The marketing hype even goes as far as to claim that "Every battery you've ever thrown away still had 80 percent of it's energy left" or something similar to that. That's just plain nuts, or rather just not honest at all. If that's not enough, they even have a University professor claiming such gains, which makes me wonder where they found that guy.

I am sorry to say this stuff, because i'd like to see something that actually provides us with more run time for most products. I am happy to say that it may work for some strange device, but only with a small gain in energy unless the device is really badly designed.

I havent seen any for sale.

 

If that's not enough, they even have a University professor claiming such gains, which makes me wonder where they found that guy.

I wondered the same thing. I've seen similar marketing crap where they claim some expert from such and such place "proves" their concept only to find out that said expert does not exist at said place. Sometimes they do exist and when I've actually contacted them the usual response is that they are completely unaware of the product or, if they are, that they claim never to have made such claim or to have been taken seriously out of context. In this case, the professor does actually exist. His specialty is condensed matter physics. Whether he knows that he endorsed this product or not is unknown to me. If he did, I'm guessing that he was way out of his area of expertise and based his claims upon the definitions that they fed to him (which would still be pretty inexcusable on his part).

 

One of the main problems (not including a lot of others) is that they claim an 800 percent increase in energy due to the wasted 80 percent, but that's based on a device that cuts out at, are you ready for this, 1.4 volts !

One of the things that always catches my eye is that people, particularly marketers, don't know how to figure percentage.

I think the 800% increase claim comes from the claim that the battery lasts 8x as long (which, of course, is at odds with the claim that 80% of the energy is wasted in normal battery usage to begin with). If it lasted 8x as long then that would be a 700% increase in battery life.

But marketers neither know nor care about being correct and accurate. They only know what sounds good to a naïve audience.

 

This is terrific......someone here should have come up with this.

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-batteroo-batteriser-sleeve-battery-life.html

The reason no one here came up with it is because people here are not charlatans.

 

Damn, without that 80%, I can't fly my flike.

http://whatisflike.com/

 

Damn, without that 80%, I can't fly my flike.

http://whatisflike.com/

This and other "hoverbikes" all seem, to me, to be big on flashy promotion and light on technical merit. Some actually have flying subscale models, but so what? They tend to be comparable in size to commercial quad and hex copters that are already out there. The big thing is that none of them seem to even acknowledge the issue of the cube-square law that they have to contend with in scaling up to human sized.

 

Yeah that cube-square law stops me.

I was thinking of this, but I can no longer stand, and I certainly can't take cold water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=55&v=Bfa9HrieUyQ

 

The reason no one here came up with it is because people here are not charlatans.

For the right amount of cash I'd be glad to 'invent' some bogus product.