Like with all other products which are relatively new or not well known, it is necessary to give you proof that Battery Equaliser is working. There are many product tests as well as research that had been done. In this article we want to summarise some of these tests and its results. Battery Equaliser has been tested by several big companies and distributors:
Who tested: United States Marine Corps, Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch, Camp Pendleton, California, United States
Procedure: A laboratory test in 1999. A 6TL battery with no bad cells only had a reserve time of 53 minutes while cold cranking amps for a good battery was selected. The Marine corp. decided to add Battery Equaliser to improve the reserve time.
Results: The plan is to “integrate Battery Equaliser into a battery maintenance plan” since it increased the reserve time by 131 minutes. It is an option to battery replacement. It is not only increasing the reserve time but also much less expensive.
Who tested: Amerigon, Electric Vehicle Manufacture, Irwindale, California, United States
Procedure: A laboratory test in 1998. The main question was if Battery Equaliser can increase the amp-hr capacity. For that a Fluke Hydra logger was used to instrument an AEV-005-red with eight Trojan T-125 six volt batteries. The aim was to monitor the current as well as the battery pack voltage of three cycles per minute.
Results: The capacity strongly improved from 120 amp-hr to 138 amp-hr which means and total increase of 15 percent. That in turn leads to yield a driving range increase of 15 percent as well.
Who tested: ETRS Pty Ltd., Quality Endorsed Company, West Footcray, Australia
Procedure: A laboratory test in 1997. The aim was to compare the battery performance of 6 volt and 105 ampere hour Telecom type pasted plate PB-acid stationary batteries. It was a setup battery test-controlled environment test, second hand. The focus was also on the cell voltage as well as on positive and negative plate characteristics during the charge and discharge.
Results: Battery Equaliser was leading to a significant improvement in 4 out of the 7 battery cells treated. None of these cells was losing capacity after adding Battery Equaliser. The change of capacity differed from cell to cell and conducted from zero to 13%. It was found out that the improvement was caused by the reduction in the polarization of the positive plated during discharge.
Who tested: North East Wales Institute, Deeside College, Connahs Quay, England
Procedure: A laboratory test in 1994. The main question was if Battery Equaliser is able to reduce the consumption of water. Two identical 12 volt lead-acid batteries acquired but just one of them was treated with the additive. Both batteries, the treated one and the other one were subjected to exactly the same charge-discharge cycles.
Results: The consumption of water was reduced significantly over 50 percent. The consumption of water felt from 850 millilitres to 410 millilitres in the mentioned charge-discharge cycles. This improvement is related to the gas and spray evolution.
Who tested: COSTCO, Carlsbad, California, United States
Procedure: A warehouse test in 1997. COSTCO wanted to see if the treatment with the Equaliser is leading to a) a reduced charging time and b) to a reduced discharging time. Tested was a TENNANT floor scrubber with two 18 volt batteries which usual charging time conducted 5 hours and 30 minutes. The running (discharging) time was 3 hours and 15 minutes.
Results: The period of treatment was two weeks in total. After this period the charging time was reduced by 1 hour to 4 hours and 30 minutes. The discharging time increased significantly bi 1 hour and 15 minutes to 4 hours and 40 minutes in total. Due to those improvements the total savings were 0,67 Dollar a day which makes 250.00 Dollar per year for just one piece of machinery. The same result was achieved 3 month later.
Who tested: Crown Lift Trucks, Southern California, United States
Procedure: A four year old 36 volt battery for a forklift was running 3 hours on the first test. It was found that four cells needed to be rebuilt before this battery could be returned into service. Battery Equaliser was used for five charging-discharging cycles.
Results: The battery returned to the customer as a full 6 hour battery which means a improvement of 50%. Due to the put back of sulfation into solution the battery is running better than ever.