That was the point.
Maybe, but doubtful. You'd need a ~3.3uH .5mm shielded inductor with decent DCR and saturation current. Two windings, if it's a joule-thief.
0.75V is most certainly not the usual cutoff. From measurements of countless cells by the roadside, typical consumer devices cut out at 1.3V, or rarely, 1.2V. But not the 1.4V claimed in the patent--I've never seen that.Cheers, James Arthur
I would be extremely surprised if a device intended to be used with NiCd AA cells at 1.2 volts was damaged by Alkaline AA cells at 1.5 volts. The threshold of damage for nearly all electronic devices is wider than that or the devices don't have a very long life.
The idea that you need to compare battery types by assuming different device types is a bit absurd. That would be an extreme minority of cases.
Your assumptions have nothing to do with the invention.
Yes, your assumption of a 1.35 volt cutoff is an extreme assumption.
You did *not* demonstrate how it would not work with NiMH cells, you made more assumptions that are only valid in a few very specific cases and are totally different from the assumptions you made for the alkaline cells. So your conclusions are based solely on your assumptions which apply in very limited cases.
I'm done discussing this. Enjoy.
Cool to see this on here... I was about to make a posting... but it's already here =D
So what you guys make of this ? Will it work, the minitized version that is ? =D
I will include some newsgroups for those people stupid enough to use wireless keyboards and wireless mouses with batteries =D
Bye, Skybuck =D
Oh one more thing, this is apperently how a joule thief works:
Didn't see that link yet in original posting.
Bye, Skybuck.
I was equally surprised which is why I shoved in alkaline cells. There are 4 cells. It was obvious that there was a problem because the case became rather warm (not hot). I continued to use the camera for about
50 photos until it just quit. I filed a warranty claim and Canon accepted it as a manufacturing defect. I would call it a design defect. My guess(tm) is that I cooked a linear regulator. I would not expect that from a switcher.Incidentally, in my days in the 2way radio business, it was customary to have battery holders that would accept 10 AA NiCd cells for a total of 13.5VDC. However, when 8 AA alkaline cells were used, the radios were supplied with two shorted dummy cells, to keep the voltage down to about 12.0VDC. Handhelds and scanners from Radio Shack, Midland, Standard, etc all did it this way until they switched to overpriced packaged battery packs. In the interim, some radios and scanners had an alkaline-NiCd switch in the battery compartment.
True. Todays wide range switchers would not have the problem. Linear regulators would (from overheating).
That was not my assumption. It was extracted directly from the PC World article at: "A completely new alkaline battery is rated to generate 1.5 volts, but once its output drops below 1.35 or even 1.4 volts, it effectively becomes useless to many devices."
Sigh. I tried.
The "ostensibly dead" part is what is important.
The article makes claims about, at what voltage, a device may no longer function. The higher the value that an analyst uses for the cutoff, the better the device looks. And we can't have that.
Say for example, a multi-cell mobile device, functions down to 1.0V per cell (suitable for operation with NiCd as well as alkaline). The batteriser extends the life from
1.0V to 0.6V. On one cell type, the gain is relatively modest, while the gain on the Energizer Titanium is a bit better..The curve is in mA-hours, and really needs to be in watt-hours to be fair. When the battery gets down to 1.0V, it is providing
66% of the voltage. The booster circuit, to compensate, draws 1.5 amps of current, to make a 1.0 amp output (due to the reduced voltage). My math is a crude attempt to try to compare the behavior as if the curves were in watt-hours.Energizer Max - 12.7% more watt-hours Energizer Titanium (perhaps a premium product) - 21.6% more watt-hours
And the other aspect of this product, is the conversion efficiency, which isn't stated. Say the boost circuit is
85% efficient. If you install it from the very first day, you pay for boosting when no boosting is needed. If you wait for the cell to reach 1.0V, then install the booster, you are only charged for the inefficiency for that period. So instead of getting 12.7%, maybe the number should be 12.7% * 0.85 = 10.8% more watt-hours.Since it is free energy, it will eventually pay for itself.
It's just I object to the suggestion it is saving you "80% of something". That's an exaggeration only the developer of it would make.
Paul
Well put. Everything about the 800% claim is pretty bogus. As you say, it clearly will do something for many applications, but the claims are exaggerated.
I have checked the terminal voltage on the batteries from my mouse and they are consistently 0.9 volts or below. Same with most other devices save the crappy indoor-outdoor thermometer. It only takes a month or two and the indoor unit display fades. The terminal voltage is often
1.1 or 1.2 volts depending on how much I'm willing to squint. But given the low replacement rate it would take at least a year to pay for the battery boost gadget. I only pay $0.25 for AA and AAA cells.Hello,
This might interest you too somewhat:
Have you seen this ?
(I posted link in sci.electronics.design, but forgot to include this newsgroup, so re-posting ! ;) :))
Bye, Skybuck.
Skybuck Fly> Cool to see this on here... I was about to make a posting... but it's
The "ostensibly dead" part is what is important.
The article makes claims about, at what voltage, a device may no longer function. The higher the value that an analyst uses for the cutoff, the better the device looks. And we can't have that.
Say for example, a multi-cell mobile device, functions down to 1.0V per cell (suitable for operation with NiCd as well as alkaline). The batteriser extends the life from
1.0V to 0.6V. On one cell type, the gain is relatively modest, while the gain on the Energizer Titanium is a bit better..The curve is in mA-hours, and really needs to be in watt-hours to be fair. When the battery gets down to 1.0V, it is providing
66% of the voltage. The booster circuit, to compensate, draws 1.5 amps of current, to make a 1.0 amp output (due to the reduced voltage). My math is a crude attempt to try to compare the behavior as if the curves were in watt-hours.Energizer Max - 12.7% more watt-hours Energizer Titanium (perhaps a premium product) - 21.6% more watt-hours
And the other aspect of this product, is the conversion efficiency, which isn't stated. Say the boost circuit is
85% efficient. If you install it from the very first day, you pay for boosting when no boosting is needed. If you wait for the cell to reach 1.0V, then install the booster, you are only charged for the inefficiency for that period. So instead of getting 12.7%, maybe the number should be 12.7% * 0.85 = 10.8% more watt-hours.Since it is free energy, it will eventually pay for itself.
It's just I object to the suggestion it is saving you "80% of something". That's an exaggeration only the developer of it would make.
Paul
That article reminds me of someone who writes articles just to make money for writing articles.
*******You charge batteries with a wall-powered battery charger. What could be simpler than that ?
*******If you want exotic, there are some chips made which harvest microwatts from the environment. If you want "free" battery charging, experiment with those instead. They can be fed with piezoelectric items as the energy source. Even air movement outside on a windy day, or loud noises, could be used to charge a battery. You'd just have to wait a year or two until it was finished.
The microwatt harvesters are intended for "motes", spying devices that sit around and watch an area, and receive no maintenance. Such devices may need to recharge themselves, and the duty cycle might end up being extremely low (only spy for ten minutes, recharge the device for a week, store and forward data via wireless or whatever).
Paul
" You charge batteries with a wall-powered battery charger. What could be simpler than that ? "
True but running to the wall all the time because battery ran out is also kinda annoying and time consuming somewhat.
Which gives me an idea/question:
Would this also work for Cannon Camera ACCU's ?
Hmmm.....
Bye, Skybuck.
For a lithium-ion battery, you use an approved wall charger. Safe, and effective.
Lithium-ion is not a toy, It can catch fire if abused. Only use approved chargers, which use precise charging for your protection.
NiCd on the other hand, can take abuse. My battery powered screwdriver uses that battery technology, and the battery is covered in corrosion from escaped electrolyte. Why did the electrolyte leave the battery ? Imprecise charging. The provided cradle and charging circuit, is unbelievably crude.
Lithium-ion cannot be treated that way. For your safety, they designed chargers with precision cutoff when the battery is full.
Paul
on the other hand such a device could be used to power the 1.35V alkaline compatible appliance from NiMh cells, giving an effective infinte ratio improvement :)
so with rechargables it won't give the same advantege, but it may give a different one.
Seems to me he's trying to patent a problem, being that of making a boost converter small enough to be used in such a way.
Sylvia.
-Lasse
FIRST there is NO FREE ENERGY! _You_ are talking about efficiencies less than 100%, which means LOSSY.
BTW, they say "patented technology", but if there is a patent, it is illegal because the circuit has been in the Public Domain for a long time. Maybe i should hire their patent attorneys and patent the paper clip!
Yea, and the patent would not be legal,since the circuit has been in the Public Domain for a long time.
Maybe you should read the patent before you say that. How do you know what he is patenting? It's not a circuit.
1) The Joule Thief is a circuit. 2) NO patent reference; nothing to to read.
Ok. So nothing to claim wouldn't be legal.
He doesn't need to patent a specific circuit design. He only needs to patent the concept, which covers all circuit designs. Kinda looks like he is also into patent quantity on the assumption that one of his redundant and overlapping patent applications might be defensible. Ignoring the extra hits for Micron Tech, I count 7 patent applications.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required