Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #46544
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | aus.computers, aus.electronics |
| Subject | Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent |
| Date | 2015-06-06 13:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ctf65gF7kt0U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <ctd77pFmnt8U1@mid.individual.net> <ctdgscFp4hdU1@mid.individual.net> <ctdjvtFpttlU1@mid.individual.net> <ctdklkFq3raU1@mid.individual.net> <ctdlg1FqalgU1@mid.individual.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:ctdlg1FqalgU1@mid.individual.net... > On 5/06/2015 10:57 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >> news:ctdjvtFpttlU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 5/06/2015 9:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>> news:ctd77pFmnt8U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 5/06/2015 5:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>> news:ctcrs0Fjup5U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 5/06/2015 3:42 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:ctcprsFjgfkU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 5/06/2015 2:50 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:ctcjseFi6rfU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/06/2015 12:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:ctccruFgnlaU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/06/2015 9:16 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ct9ql0Fr49nU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/06/2015 4:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ct79kgF79afU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/06/2015 11:38 AM, Damian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ct4tn7Fj4asU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/06/2015 1:47 PM, felix_unger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the claims need to be, if not taken with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pinch of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> salt, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood for exactly what they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com.au/patents/US20120121943?dq=20120121943+A1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3TxtVf2zNYWO8QXdwYKgDw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Some electronic equipments that use disposable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batteries, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as AA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batteries, are designed to stop operating when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drops >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by 10% or so. That means when the voltage of an AA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drops to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.4V or 1.35V." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, that may be true, but if the voltage curves shown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patent are correct, equipment that bails at 1.35 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceedingly wasteful. Note that the claims is only that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "some" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the majority do, nor that most do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By comparison, equipment that's happy to run until the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drops >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1V >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have removed most of the available energy from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if, as is possible, such equipment contains a linear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulator to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a constant internal voltage, then adding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batteriser to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant 1.5V input will just run the battery down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulator >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissipates more energy as heat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That if the majority of the equipment comes with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulator circuittry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly any consumer electronic device come with that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afaik. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many that comes with such circuitry are commercial and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equipment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a question of having step up circuitry. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what voltage the device requires to operate. If it can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on 1V >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per cell then there's no need to provide extra circuity to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pump the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage back to 1.5V per cell. Doing so not only wastes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pump circuitry due to its lack of 100% efficiency, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but also wastes energy in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 0.5V drop from what's supplied to the device to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. They don’t normally regulate it down to that 1V >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just works fine with everything from 1.5V down to 1V. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about the physics of it, Rod. If it can work on 1V, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher voltage wastes energy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless the device contrives to draw a lower current at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, think of a constant current device. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A constant current device consumes power in proportion to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> applied >>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the device isn't necessarily a constant current device. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You raised constant current devices. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Only to rub your nose in that error of yours. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which typically implies some kind of non-linear regulator). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No reason why it can't just connect the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly to the load while ever the voltage is high >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough and put it thru a step up regulator when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the battery voltage is too low, to get what remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the battery out of the battery. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to propose an actual circuit that does that without >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself >>>>>>>>>>>>> wasting energy? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One obvious way to do that is to use a relay that >>>>>>>>>>>> applys the battery directly to what its powering >>>>>>>>>>>> while ever the battery has sufficient voltage and >>>>>>>>>>>> then switches the step up regulator in when the >>>>>>>>>>>> battery voltage drops below the voltage at which >>>>>>>>>>>> the device will turn itself off due to insufficient voltage. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And the relay coil is powered how? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t have to be powered, it can be a bistable relay >>>>>>>>>> or use the normally closed terminals when the relay >>>>>>>>>> is not powered to connect the battery directly to the >>>>>>>>>> load when the battery voltage is high enough. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, the point remains that applying an unnecessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>> high >>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage to a device is wasteful of energy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But you don’t have to do it like that. The battery >>>>>>>>>>>> can be directly connected to the load when it >>>>>>>>>>>> is producing sufficient voltage to power the load. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The batteriser cannot tell what voltage is sufficient. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It can work that out from when the load no longer >>>>>>>>>> runs when the battery voltage is low enough. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Devices don't necessarily stop drawing current just because the >>>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>>> voltage has reached a level below which they cannot work properly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, but there normally is a significant drop in current >>>>>>>> drawn when they decide that the voltage is too low to >>>>>>>> allow the device to be used normally. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know about "normally", >>>>>> >>>>>> Or anything else at all either. >>>>>> >>>>>>> but in any case, there are significant drops in current for reasons >>>>>>> entirely unrelated to the voltage being too low, >>>>>> >>>>>> Not to such a low level of current that it clearly >>>>>> isn't turned on as far as the user is concerned. >>>> >>>>> And you have a cite to back up that claim? >>>> >>>> Don’t need a cite, even someone as stupid as you can try measuring it. >>>> >>>>> I have a clock with an un-illuminated LCD readout. >>>> >>>> And that isn't sort of device that anyone but someone >>>> as stupid as you would ever use something like what is >>>> being discussed with. >> >>> I wondered whether this would be the point where you'd start excluding >>> devices that are counter-examples. >> >> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. >> >> And it isn't a counter example either. >> >>>> And even if you did, you would find that when it stops >>>> working with a particular battery, that there is a significant >>>> drop in the current it takes from that battery when it does. >> >>> The current it draws rises and falls by about 50% very couple of >>> seconds. >> >> And its completely trivial for any well designed system to see that. >> >>> When the alarm goes off, the current rises considerably, >> >> Irrelevant when what its looking for is a significant and permanent drop. > > How long does one have to watch a drop to determine whether or not it is > permanent? Obviously if it drops to much lower than it was for a significant amount of time, its obviously stopped. >>> and then falls again once the alarm is cancelled. >> >> Irrelevant when what its looking for is a significant and permanent drop. > It typically drops for slightly under 24 hours, despite being not > permanent. The current it takes when its alarming isn't the normal current, fuckwit. >>>>> It runs on a single AAA battery, and draws about 15 microamps. Yet >>>>> it's turned on. >>>> >>>> And that current will drop significantly when >>>> it has decided that the battery is too flat to use. >> >>> You know this how? >> >> By measuring it, fuckwit. Tad radical, I know. >> >>>>> Just how low is this alleged not-turned-on threshold? >>>> >>>> A significant drop from the current it takes when turned on, fuckwit. >> >>> You mean you want to note the current when it's first turned on, and >>> detect a later drop? >> >> Nope. > > Then what you're proposing makes no sense. You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Back to aus.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> - 2015-06-03 11:38 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-03 16:30 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-04 12:14 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-04 21:16 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-04 13:37 +0200
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 11:38 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 12:23 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 15:19 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 15:42 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 15:54 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 19:08 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 21:52 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 22:45 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 22:57 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 23:11 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-06 13:02 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-06 13:50 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-06 19:51 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-06 19:59 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-04 13:34 +0200
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 11:40 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 12:25 +1000
Re: Batteries claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 14:54 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-05 12:54 +0200
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-06-05 23:03 +1000
Re: Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery life by 800 percent BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-05 16:47 +0200
csiph-web