Batteriser claims to be able to extend disposable battery li

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet felix_unger wrote:
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html

So much FUD it's amazing any reputable magazine would 'print' it.

As for playing on the break-in? I'll bet real money that was a PR stunt. If
anything the published pic of the door and stated fact (?) that the police
have a case number for it enforces my theory. No beter way to get
crowdfunding from the hoi polloi than getting them to think 'big money' is
ring to kill something that will hurt their profits.

Still, if they work I'll get some for the couple devices I have that won't
work with Ni-MH - as long as they don't kill the cells by sucking them dry.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Sylvia Else wrote:

On 3/06/2015 11:40 AM, Damian wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ct56tuFl9kjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/06/2015 3:52 PM, Rod Speed 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. So my take on this is that it can probably work, but
that it will
not deliver anything like the benefits claimed, and in some (how
many, I don't know) cases, it will actually be detrimental.

Don't see why it would be detrimental unless it causes the battery
to leak.

For the reason I gave, and because, as even the inventor concedes,
it's not 100% efficient.

Depends what you meant by "100% efficient". The product claims to
increase the life(or usage) of the battey a factor of eight for the
consumer electronic and other devices that demand the 1.5V or near
there.
I'm using the conventional meaning of efficiency in the context of
dc-dc converters - which is the ratio of output power to input power.

I question how many devices will actually cease to operate at 1.4V or
1.35V per cell.

That's is the point. Of all the devices I have that use AA and AAA cells
there's only *one* that won't run off 1.2v NiMH cells. Everything else runs
just fine and most drains the NiMH cells of ~90% of their charge before
needing a recharge. Of all the devices that will use them only my camera
starts flashing the 'low bat' warning when the NiMH cells are only half
drained and that's not an issue - I have heaps of Eneloops and Maha Wizard
One charger.

So the claims for this device are specious at best.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

 

[Rod Speed]

"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.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ctf914F878gU1@mid.individual.net...

On 6/06/2015 1:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

Music player between tracks?

It's completely trivial to keep track of the minimum current seen
while the voltage is well above what any device would shut down
at and then observe that the current has dropped well below that
when the voltage has dropped to a level at which some do shut down
because the voltage is too low, and switch the boost converter in then.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one has ever actually
been stupid enough to employ you do design anything that matters.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ctfu5jFd6atU1@mid.individual.net...

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ctf914F878gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/06/2015 1:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

Music player between tracks?

It's completely trivial to keep track of the minimum current seen
while the voltage is well above what any device would shut down
at and then observe that the current has dropped well below that
when the voltage has dropped to a level at which some do shut down
because the voltage is too low, and switch the boost converter in then.

The worst that might happen is that the boost converter is switched in
too early and the only downside with that is that you done get quite as
much extra power out of the battery with a device that isnt as well suited
as with the absolute vast bulk of devices which will be trivially easy to
work out when its shut down due to the voltage being too low.

Bullshit your way out of that one, Else.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one has ever
actually
been stupid enough to employ you do design anything that matters.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ctfukjFd9ugU1@mid.individual.net...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ctfu5jFd6atU1@mid.individual.net...


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ctf914F878gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/06/2015 1:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

Music player between tracks?

It's completely trivial to keep track of the minimum current seen
while the voltage is well above what any device would shut down
at and then observe that the current has dropped well below that
when the voltage has dropped to a level at which some do shut down
because the voltage is too low, and switch the boost converter in then.

The worst that might happen is that the boost converter is switched in
too early and the only downside with that is that you done get quite as
much extra power out of the battery with a device that isnt as well suited
as with the absolute vast bulk of devices which will be trivially easy to
work out when its shut down due to the voltage being too low.

Even if say the device has a very low current mode like say with a
smartphone
which can be turned off and only consumes enough power to recognise that
the electronic power switch has been held on for a while to get it to turn
on,
and the user has only turned it off completely like that once the battery
voltage
has got low enough so there is a real possibility that the device has shut
itself
down, if that wasn’t the device itself shutting itself down due to the
battery
voltage being below what it will run the device, the device wouldn’t
normally
come back from that state again, and even if it did, that would only see not
quite a much power obtained from the battery than if that very low current
had been seen while the voltage was still high enough to not be an
involuntary
shutdown.

And you should take that utter obscenity of a sentence out the back and
beat it to death with the largest waddy you can find before it breeds.

Bullshit your way out of that one, Else.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one has ever
actually
been stupid enough to employ you do design anything that matters.

 

[Clocky]

On 3/06/2015 9:40 AM, Damian wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ct56tuFl9kjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/06/2015 3:52 PM, Rod Speed 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.

So my take on this is that it can probably work, but that it will not
deliver anything like the benefits claimed, and in some (how many, I
don't know) cases, it will actually be detrimental.

Don't see why it would be detrimental unless it causes the battery
to leak.

For the reason I gave, and because, as even the inventor concedes, it's
not 100% efficient.

Depends what you meant by "100% efficient". The product claims to increase
the life(or usage) of the battey a factor of eight for the consumer
electronic and other devices that demand the 1.5V or near there.

Which is hardly any device ever produced.

Most will work down to around 1.0v per cell, which blows a massive hole
in the 800% claim right away because the premise of their claim is
complete bullshit.

http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:

On 3/06/2015 9:40 AM, Damian wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ct56tuFl9kjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/06/2015 3:52 PM, Rod Speed 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. So my take on this is that it can probably work, but
that it will
not deliver anything like the benefits claimed, and in some (how
many, I don't know) cases, it will actually be detrimental.

Don't see why it would be detrimental unless it causes the battery
to leak.

For the reason I gave, and because, as even the inventor concedes,
it's not 100% efficient.

Depends what you meant by "100% efficient". The product claims to
increase the life(or usage) of the battey a factor of eight for the
consumer electronic and other devices that demand the 1.5V or near
there.

Which is hardly any device ever produced.

Most will work down to around 1.0v per cell, which blows a massive
hole in the 800% claim right away because the premise of their claim
is complete bullshit.

http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the extremely
lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he could modulate
his infomercial style presentation....
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

 

[Clocky]

On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:

Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 3/06/2015 9:40 AM, Damian wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ct56tuFl9kjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/06/2015 3:52 PM, Rod Speed 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. So my take on this is that it can probably work, but
that it will
not deliver anything like the benefits claimed, and in some (how
many, I don't know) cases, it will actually be detrimental.

Don't see why it would be detrimental unless it causes the battery
to leak.

For the reason I gave, and because, as even the inventor concedes,
it's not 100% efficient.

Depends what you meant by "100% efficient". The product claims to
increase the life(or usage) of the battey a factor of eight for the
consumer electronic and other devices that demand the 1.5V or near
there.

Which is hardly any device ever produced.

Most will work down to around 1.0v per cell, which blows a massive
hole in the 800% claim right away because the premise of their claim
is complete bullshit.

http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the extremely
lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry thing to
say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy as you say.

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he could modulate
his infomercial style presentation....

Takes some getting used to for sure. I'm OK with it now, but at first
found it irritating.

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:

On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the
extremely lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry thing to
say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy as you say.

Actually you could be right about it being an industry thing. I was watching
this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEN_HNFK40 and he also says 'led'
(at around 5m32s). Lazy buggers - I hope it doesn't catch on in general
usage.

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he could
modulate his infomercial style presentation....

Takes some getting used to for sure. I'm OK with it now, but at first
found it irritating.

I might persevere then. As I mentioned a few searches have lead <cough> me
to his channel. ;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

 

[Clocky]

On 9/06/2015 8:39 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:

Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the
extremely lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry thing to
say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy as you say.

Actually you could be right about it being an industry thing. I was watching
this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEN_HNFK40 and he also says 'led'
(at around 5m32s). Lazy buggers - I hope it doesn't catch on in general
usage.

Yeah saw the same vid and noticed that too. Still lazy IMO.

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he could
modulate his infomercial style presentation....

Takes some getting used to for sure. I'm OK with it now, but at first
found it irritating.

I might persevere then. As I mentioned a few searches have lead <cough> me
to his channel. ;-)

He's done a write-up now showing the calculations etc used to debunk
(just for you

Check the latest blog.

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:

On 9/06/2015 8:39 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the
extremely lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry thing
to say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy as you say.

Actually you could be right about it being an industry thing. I was
watching this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEN_HNFK40 and he
also says 'led' (at around 5m32s). Lazy buggers - I hope it doesn't
catch on in general usage.

Yeah saw the same vid and noticed that too. Still lazy IMO.

Yep. Seems they know each other, at least they chat in comments with each
other. Hopefully it's only those two and it doesn't spread. (Like that's
going to happen, people are getting more and more lazy with regards to
language.)

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he could
modulate his infomercial style presentation....

Takes some getting used to for sure. I'm OK with it now, but at
first found it irritating.

I might persevere then. As I mentioned a few searches have lead
cough> me to his channel. ;-)


He's done a write-up now showing the calculations etc used to debunk
(just for you

Check the latest blog.

Heh! I agreed with him anyway - well rather he agrees with me as I formed my
opinion / did my calculations before he posted that. ;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

 

[BuckyBalls]

On 9/06/2015 2:39 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:

Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the
extremely lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry thing to
say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy as you say.

What's wrong with sayin 'LED' instead of 'el' 'ee' 'dee'? It is just an
example of an acronym. I suppose you DON'T say 'MOSFET' as 'em' 'oh'
'ess' 'eff' 'ee' 'tee', or 'NASA' as 'en' 'ay' 'ess' 'ay'?
What about 'ROM', 'RAM', 'GIF', 'DOS', 'LAN' etc???
What's the fucking difference with 'LED'? It isn't being lazy, it is
making the English language more efficient.
The average non-technical person probably doesn't even know what LED
stands for in LED TV etc. so I'd be surprised if the use of the acronym
'LED' doesn't completely take over in time. It makes sense.

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:

Once upon a time on usenet yaputya wrote:

Sensitive little fellow, aren't you?
I see you avoided actually responding - do you say 'RAM' 'ROM'
'FET' etc. or do you spell them out? Why should 'LED' be any
different?

No response = no answer

The prize for most meaningless and obvious post (quoting a thesaurus for no
apparent reason) for 2015 goes to...... yap yap yaputya!!!!!!!

P.S. ATM, ABS, MRI aren't sounded out. It seems that (lazy) people only
sound out acronyms that have a vowel in the middle because that's easy. Also
there are alreay several different meanings for words that sound exactly
like 'led' so I take issue with that one being sounded out as a lot of the
time it could lead to confusion. That's why, in the decades since LEDs have
been around they've always been called El Ee Dees. RAM, ROM and FET were
almost instantly sounded out as there was little chance of confusion (unless
you were a sheep farmer computer technician of low IQ).

True, and I think especially in this case because saying "Led Lighting" that
way would sound the same as "Leadlighting", and that's just not going to help
society in the long run.

It's only now that a small sub-set of the population (on youtube no less
"look I'm a trend-setter!") are showing how lazy they are (or more likely
how bad their pronunciation / enunciation is). <shrug

I don't know about Dave Jones, but I think Mike Harrison has a bit of an
excuse because his job is in building lighting installations. If you're with
someone trying to diagnose a fault in an array of a few hundred LEDs, I
think it's understandable to go the easy route.

As far as I'm concerned: widespread adoption = bad. Use during in-depth
chatter amongst electronics nerds = acceptable.

Those are my last words on the subject as it seems this group isn't quite as
'grown up' as I thought it was and it's easy to get dragged into mudslinging
by people who live in mud and so are more comfortable with it than I.

Yes, the last thing you want is to be _Led_ down that path.

I'll run away now...

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

 

[yaputya]

On 10/06/2015 3:39 AM, Clocky wrote:

On 10/06/2015 4:08 AM, BuckyBalls wrote:
On 9/06/2015 11:45 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 9/06/2015 8:39 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/


I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the
extremely lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry thing
to say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy as you say.

Actually you could be right about it being an industry thing. I was
watching this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEN_HNFK40 and he
also says 'led' (at around 5m32s). Lazy buggers - I hope it doesn't
catch on in general usage.

Yeah saw the same vid and noticed that too. Still lazy IMO.

Yep. Seems they know each other, at least they chat in comments with each
other. Hopefully it's only those two and it doesn't spread. (Like that's
going to happen, people are getting more and more lazy with regards to
language.)

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he could
modulate his infomercial style presentation....

Takes some getting used to for sure. I'm OK with it now, but at
first found it irritating.

I might persevere then. As I mentioned a few searches have lead
cough> me to his channel. ;-)


He's done a write-up now showing the calculations etc used to debunk
(just for you

Check the latest blog.

Heh! I agreed with him anyway - well rather he agrees with me as I
formed my
opinion / did my calculations before he posted that. ;-)

Really?
So EXACTLY where did you post your calculations and WHEN????
Dave is honest and upfront, are you??


What is with the agro?

Not meaning to be agro, just why is saying 'LED' as aword is any different from saying 'RAM'.
Dave J. has far more cred than you have, so when he says 'LED' you should take note.
Why aren't you whingers complaining about the way the yanks say SODDER instead of SOLDER???

 

[yaputya]

On 10/06/2015 1:34 PM, BuckyBalls wrote:

On 10/06/2015 2:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet BuckyBalls" <"The Pres wrote:
On 9/06/2015 11:45 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 9/06/2015 8:39 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and the
extremely lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry thing
to say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy as you
say.

Actually you could be right about it being an industry thing. I was
watching this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEN_HNFK40 and
he also says 'led' (at around 5m32s). Lazy buggers - I hope it
doesn't catch on in general usage.

Yeah saw the same vid and noticed that too. Still lazy IMO.

Yep. Seems they know each other, at least they chat in comments with
each other. Hopefully it's only those two and it doesn't spread.
(Like that's going to happen, people are getting more and more lazy
with regards to language.)

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he
could modulate his infomercial style presentation....

Takes some getting used to for sure. I'm OK with it now, but at
first found it irritating.

I might persevere then. As I mentioned a few searches have lead
cough> me to his channel. ;-)


He's done a write-up now showing the calculations etc used to debunk
(just for you

Check the latest blog.

Heh! I agreed with him anyway - well rather he agrees with me as I
formed my opinion / did my calculations before he posted that. ;-)

Really?
So EXACTLY where did you post your calculations and WHEN????
Dave is honest and upfront, are you??

I didn't post them although there were notes jotted on an old envelope after
looking up alkaline cell manufacturers specs.

Three posts from you in short order attacking my opinions in a very
aggressive manner. Are you always confrontational or do you just have a
hard-on for me? (I see in one of them you actually replied to a post of mine
but a paragraph of Clockys though - not enough blood to run two organs at
once?)

Sensitive little fellow, aren't you?
I see you avoided actually responding - do you say 'RAM' 'ROM' 'FET' etc. or do you spell them out?
Why should 'LED' be any different?

No response = no answer

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet yaputya wrote:

On 10/06/2015 1:34 PM, BuckyBalls wrote:
On 10/06/2015 2:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet BuckyBalls" <"The Pres wrote:
On 9/06/2015 11:45 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 9/06/2015 8:39 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
On 7/06/2015 11:13 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/06/05/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-the-batteriser/

I stopped watching his videos because of his whiney voice and
the extremely lazy use of 'led' as a word instead of saying L
E D.

That annoys me too though I don't know if that's an industry
thing to say it that way. Not that it matters, it's still lazy
as you say.

Actually you could be right about it being an industry thing. I
was watching this vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEN_HNFK40 and he also says
'led' (at around 5m32s). Lazy buggers - I hope it doesn't catch
on in general usage.

Yeah saw the same vid and noticed that too. Still lazy IMO.

Yep. Seems they know each other, at least they chat in comments
with each other. Hopefully it's only those two and it doesn't
spread. (Like that's going to happen, people are getting more and
more lazy with regards to language.)

Shame, he's got some good info to share otherwise. If only he
could modulate his infomercial style presentation....

Takes some getting used to for sure. I'm OK with it now, but at
first found it irritating.

I might persevere then. As I mentioned a few searches have lead
cough> me to his channel. ;-)


He's done a write-up now showing the calculations etc used to
debunk (just for you

Check the latest blog.

Heh! I agreed with him anyway - well rather he agrees with me as I
formed my opinion / did my calculations before he posted that. ;-)

Really?
So EXACTLY where did you post your calculations and WHEN????
Dave is honest and upfront, are you??

I didn't post them although there were notes jotted on an old
envelope after looking up alkaline cell manufacturers specs.

Three posts from you in short order attacking my opinions in a very
aggressive manner. Are you always confrontational or do you just
have a hard-on for me? (I see in one of them you actually replied
to a post of mine but a paragraph of Clockys though - not enough
blood to run two organs at once?)

Sensitive little fellow, aren't you?
I see you avoided actually responding - do you say 'RAM' 'ROM'
'FET' etc. or do you spell them out? Why should 'LED' be any
different?

No response = no answer

The prize for most meaningless and obvious post (quoting a thesaurus for no
apparent reason) for 2015 goes to...... yap yap yaputya!!!!!!!

P.S. ATM, ABS, MRI aren't sounded out. It seems that (lazy) people only
sound out acronyms that have a vowel in the middle because that's easy. Also
there are alreay several different meanings for words that sound exactly
like 'led' so I take issue with that one being sounded out as a lot of the
time it could lead to confusion. That's why, in the decades since LEDs have
been around they've always been called El Ee Dees. RAM, ROM and FET were
almost instantly sounded out as there was little chance of confusion (unless
you were a sheep farmer computer technician of low IQ).

It's only now that a small sub-set of the population (on youtube no less
"look I'm a trend-setter!") are showing how lazy they are (or more likely
how bad their pronunciation / enunciation is). <shrug>

Those are my last words on the subject as it seems this group isn't quite as
'grown up' as I thought it was and it's easy to get dragged into mudslinging
by people who live in mud and so are more comfortable with it than I. It's a
shame when there are people in a group who jump into threads boots first
suggesting another poster is dishonest and being condescending while adding
nothing positive.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-06-12, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

True, and I think especially in this case because saying "Led Lighting" that
way would sound the same as "Leadlighting", and that's just not going to help
society in the long run.

Say "Led illumination", "Led lamp(s)" etc is there a risk of confusion.

I don't know about Dave Jones, but I think Mike Harrison has a bit of an
excuse because his job is in building lighting installations. If you're with
someone trying to diagnose a fault in an array of a few hundred LEDs, I
think it's understandable to go the easy route.

As far as I'm concerned: widespread adoption = bad. Use during in-depth
chatter amongst electronics nerds = acceptable.

Why should we have all the fun?

> Yes, the last thing you want is to be _Led_ down that path.

Perhaps you are dragging feet of lead?

--
umop apisdn

 

[BuckyBalls]

On 12/06/2015 3:10 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-06-12, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

True, and I think especially in this case because saying "Led Lighting" that
way would sound the same as "Leadlighting", and that's just not going to help
society in the long run.

Say "Led illumination", "Led lamp(s)" etc is there a risk of confusion.

I don't know about Dave Jones, but I think Mike Harrison has a bit of an
excuse because his job is in building lighting installations. If you're with
someone trying to diagnose a fault in an array of a few hundred LEDs, I
think it's understandable to go the easy route.

As far as I'm concerned: widespread adoption = bad. Use during in-depth
chatter amongst electronics nerds = acceptable.

Why should we have all the fun?

Yes, the last thing you want is to be _Led_ down that path.

Perhaps you are dragging feet of lead?

I still believe the average Joe doesn't have a clue what L.E.D. stands
for, so the writing is on the wall for you 'spellers'.
Anyway, everyone has avoided the obvious questions - why is FET RAM DOS
etc. acceptable and LED is not? You ain't making any sense with that
logic. Oh. and only an idiot would confuse LED with LEAD etc. when used
in context. But then, only idiots seem to be upset with the acronym as
used by David L Jones etc.....

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet yaputya wrote:

Sensitive little fellow, aren't you?
I see you avoided actually responding - do you say 'RAM' 'ROM'
'FET' etc. or do you spell them out? Why should 'LED' be any
different?

No response = no answer

The prize for most meaningless and obvious post (quoting a thesaurus
for no apparent reason) for 2015 goes to...... yap yap yaputya!!!!!!!

P.S. ATM, ABS, MRI aren't sounded out. It seems that (lazy) people
only sound out acronyms that have a vowel in the middle because
that's easy. Also there are alreay several different meanings for
words that sound exactly like 'led' so I take issue with that one
being sounded out as a lot of the time it could lead to confusion.
That's why, in the decades since LEDs have been around they've
always been called El Ee Dees. RAM, ROM and FET were almost
instantly sounded out as there was little chance of confusion
(unless you were a sheep farmer computer technician of low IQ).

True, and I think especially in this case because saying "Led
Lighting" that way would sound the same as "Leadlighting", and that's
just not going to help society in the long run.

It's only now that a small sub-set of the population (on youtube no
less "look I'm a trend-setter!") are showing how lazy they are (or
more likely how bad their pronunciation / enunciation is). <shrug

I don't know about Dave Jones, but I think Mike Harrison has a bit of
an excuse because his job is in building lighting installations. If
you're with someone trying to diagnose a fault in an array of a few
hundred LEDs, I think it's understandable to go the easy route.

As far as I'm concerned: widespread adoption = bad. Use during
in-depth chatter amongst electronics nerds = acceptable.

Those are my last words on the subject as it seems this group isn't
quite as 'grown up' as I thought it was and it's easy to get dragged
into mudslinging by people who live in mud and so are more
comfortable with it than I.

Yes, the last thing you want is to be _Led_ down that path.

I'll run away now...

;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)