United States Marine Corp., Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch
Camp Pendleton, California, United States
LABORATORY TEST: MAY 1999. The 6TL (Military 12 volt) battery that was marked for disposal (with no bad cells) but lacked adequate reserve time (only 53 min.) and cold cranking amps for a good battery was selected. The 6TL battery using the additive increased reserve time to 131 minutes.
RESULTS: Battery Equaliser additive would be recommended as an alternative to battery replacement and should be implemented into a battery maintenance plan”.
Amerigon, Electric Vehicle Manufacture
Irwindale, California, United States
LABORATORY TEST: MARCH 1998. AEV-005- red with eight Trojan T-125 six volt batteries was instrumented with the Fluke Hydra data logger to monitor battery pack voltage and current at a rate of three cycles per minute.
RESULTS: After five cycles the capacity was increased from a baseline of 120 amp hr to 138 amp hr, an increase of 15%. This increase in amp-hr capacity will yield a driving range increase of 15% also”.
ETRS Pty Ltd., Quality Endorsed Company
West Footcray, Australia
LABORATORY TEST: SEPTEMBER 1997. Setup battery test- controlled environment test second hand, 6 volt 105 ah Telecom type pasted plate Pb-acid stationary batteries. Compare battery performance before and after Battery Equaliser addition with respect to cell voltage and positive and negative plate Voltage characteristics during discharge and charge.
RESULTS: The Battery Equaliser additive produced significant capacity improvement in 4 of the 7 test cells treated. The improvement was attributed to a reduction in the polarization of the positive plated during discharge. The change in capacity after Battery Equaliser treatment varied from 0% to 13%. None of the cells registered a loss of capacity after the addition.”
North East Wales Institute, Deeside College
Connahs Quay, England
LABORATORY TEST: APRIL 1994. Two identical 12 volt lead/acid batteries were obtained and treated one with the test fluid, both were subjected to the same charge-discharge cycles.
RESULTS: There was a large reduction of water consumption in the presence of the additive (850 ml to 410 ml in the test is less than half ) which is related to gas and spray evolution, so a very clear improvement is achieved”.
Carlsbad, California, United States
WAREHOUSE TEST: DECEMBER 1997. Tennant floor scrubber with two 18 volt batteries was charging for 5½ hr. and running for 3¼ hr. before treatment.
RESULTS: Within two weeks after the treatment my machine was charging for 4½ hr. and running for 4½ hr. and is the same three months later. Because of the reduction of charging time we will save .67¢ per day or nearly $250.00 per year off the utility bill for just one piece of machinery.
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)
San Diego, California, United States
MONITORING TEST FOR COSTCO. Following is the approximate cost reduction of reducing charge time by one hour per day for your floor scrubber.
RESULTS: 9 (full load amps) x .748 (kw conversion factor)=6.732 (kw hrs) x $0.10 (average cost of electricity)=$0.67 per hour per floor scrubber. If you multiple the $0.67 times the number of days per year you charge the floor scrubber you will get your annual cost savings per floor scrubber.”
Dagenham Works East, London England
Crown Lift Trucks
Southern California, United States
Tested & Approved
Battery Equaliser has been tested and approved by many leading manufacturers, distributors and associations, including: