EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)

[digsys]

The answer is simple ... They're hoping that sites like this (and possibly MAINLY this site), will eventually give up and go away.
Once pressure / interest fades, it all goes away ... DOH

[amspire]

If they had to order the switching regulators in chip-on-board format as a custom order, then the first time they would be able to properly test the Batteriser is when they have ordered the production quantities of the chips. I have not seen any convincing demonstration of AA and AAA Batteriser prototypes outputting any significant current, so those prototypes may have been with a completely different regulator to the production Batteriser. If they went to China to test previously untested boards with the hope they would be production-ready, you know that is going to be a disaster.

• Probably get switching regulators failing as shorts that would short the battery. How are they going to fit a slow blow fuse on the AAA sized batteriser?
• When you have 4 Batterisers all switching near 1.5MHz, you are going to get a whole swag of audio frequency products from mixing of the switching frequencies. Battery powered devices are not designed to cope with noise-generating batteries
• Are there heat issues?
• When one battery runs out, the others are still putting out 1.5V, so you get a reverse voltage across the dead Batteriser. Do they need to add a reverse biased Schottky across the Batteriser output, and could such a diode cope with 2A of continuous current without overheating and shorting?
• How much current can the Batteriser actually output when the Battery voltage is 0.8A? Half an amp? I bet it is not 2A.
• Plus there are all the manufacturing issues and they have to build the things for probably under $1 a Batteriser.
• What plating does the clip have? Plain stainless steel would develop high contact resistance. Nickel without any wiping action can also develop resistance.
  

Any of the above could lead to a difficult or insolvable problem. A total nightmare if you are trying to go immediately into production. If they are getting switching regulator fails, they will be blaming the manufacturer, and the manufacturer will be blaming the Batteriser for not using the regulator properly. Things like this can stop production indefinitely.

A sensible approach would be to make the initial AAA and AA Batterisers with a 50mA to 100mA current limit and that is what they possibly should have offered from the start. There are a few battery-powered devices that work much better with 1.5V batteries then 1.2V batteries, and that is one place that the Batteriser could be perfect.

[Mr.B]

I don’t think they had any intention of manufacturing anything.

It was all pie in the sky bullshit in the hope to attract someone who would pay a fortune for the company and subsequently own the IP.

1. No proof of prototype has ever been delivered in an acceptable manner – the single “live” demo Mr Roo did could easily have been rigged.
2. Ever changing specifications in an attempt to counter the “proof of bullshit” from sites such as the EEVblog.
3. Bullshit lab setups with things like a brand new scope on a common table with an out of cal probe trace on the screen.
4. No selfies from the manufacturing plant in China.
5. ...the list is almost endless...

As others have said before, the problem is they underestimated the flood of “I call bullshit” from the professional EE crowd, underestimated the fact that their patent application would fail, underestimated the fact that Energiser would take exception to the marketing name… etc, etc, etc…

I stand by the opinion that the product never existed – vapourware…

[amspire]

I don’t think they had any intention of manufacturing anything.

I suspect that initially, they had dreams for a company that they could sell to a big manufacturer for a billion dollars. At some point, they have probably realised it is never going to happen. If it is not going to happen, there is no point is wasting money, so the question is when they realised that the Batteriser cannot work as advertised. Was it a scam from the start? I do not know. They said they went to China to sort out production, and then everything has gone silent. It does fit a failed manufacturing gamble without proper protoyping.

[Mr.B]

They said they went to China to sort out production...

Unfortunately there has been no proof of this.
They have said all sorts of things to attempt to keep the 'followers' happy.

It is dead easy for me to announce on social media that I am going to China to oversee the manufacturing of my special "WidgetX".
There are enough idiots on FB that will believe me, and not only that, vehemently defend me even though they have never met me.
Why... Because I have promised on social media that "WidgetX" will save the planet.

I am sure you get what I mean...

[amspire]

I am sure you get what I mean...

I do. Batteriser have done nothing to prove you wrong.

[PeterL]

What strikes me is that in the past all communications have been done by the Bob the CEO himself.

And now while the CEO is supposed to be in China, it is the rest of the team who announce "..blah blah.. lawsuit Energizer.. blah blah.. and now we're gonna drop the name 'Batteriser'.."

If there is one single announcement that should be made by the Boss himself, I think this was it.

But maybe he really is in China, behind a Chinese firewall, and thus unable to write the message himself. An if that is the case, Bob might not know yet about the decision to change the name

[Wytnucls]

SKTA Innopartners has a new 'blue chip' start-up with 'disruptive technology' on their books.
Meanwhile, the laggard Batteroo still has an office there, yes, the one with the broken door and fluffy toys lying about.

[Mr.B]

I wonder if Bob is also behind “CelLink”.
… Flexible Circuits for Power Electronics…

[meeder]

Frankie is off to another company. A company which has "disruptive technology for the storage industry"

[WN1X]

Frankie is off to another company. A company which has "disruptive technology for the storage industry"

Gee, Meeder...your battery is at 8%. You need a Batteriser. Oh, wait 

[LabSpokane]

Serial Entrepreneur: one who flits from one failed boobyhatch to the next.

[SL4P]

CELLINK as a name could be a problem...
They make 3D printed medical prosthetics.  Registered since 2002.

Why doesn't this surprise me if it is Boob...
If it is related to the brothers - Maybe they could go with Celleriser.

[EEVblog]

CELLINK as a name could be a problem...
They make 3D printed medical prosthetics.  Registered since 2002.

Yeah, confusing name, nothing immediately on google for company details...

[Mr.B]

CELLINK as a name could be a problem...

Also a cell phone supplier in Aus...
http://www.cellink.com.au/

[Delta]

Exitiser? "We take money from idiots then make our exit..."

[Bud]

Frankie is off to another company.

The guy has no shame...

[Cerebus]

Awfully quiet at this moment.

What's with not putting that last update on the actual Updates page in the IGG campaign?
Trying to publicly hide it?

This raises an interesting question with respect to crowdfunding in general and Batteroo in particular.

First, lets remind ourselves that the whole idea of crowdfunding was to invest in something that would find, or had found, it difficult to get investment funding from more traditional sources. The reward was, originally, to see something that you approved of happen rather than dwindle away due to lack of funding. The perks were that, 'perks' and not the actual thing funded. It was an 'investment' without, necessarily, a pay-off for the investor. Many people have lost sight of that and are treating it more as a way of producing, selling, and buying a product.

Secondly, and this is the question that I think is raised, if this is investing then the normal rules of dealing with investors apply. Those rules include telling investors the risks and most importantly, when the risks change. In the world of regulated investment, companies are required to file details of things like pending lawsuits in a way that investors can find, and see that the risks of their investment have changed. For US listed companies this would be a filing with the SEC. Basically, there is a duty to be frank about certain classes of information and possible lawsuits is one of them.

In the case of Batteroo, withholding the information about a possible action from Energizer from the IGG pages, while releasing it elsewhere seems to be doing the opposite to satisfying their implied duty of frankness. Moreover, they have input from traditional funding sources who probably both demand this type of information and also understand the duty to be frank with it and would have/ought to have advised Batteroo the same. If IGG were a regulated market the regulators would be preparing some formal action or prosecution at this point purely over the non-publication of that information.

TL;DR: Failing to be frank about the possible Energizer action with IGG funders flies in the face of conventions on frank honesty with investors and calls Batteroo's probity (further) into question.

[Howardlong]

Serial Entrepreneur: one who flits from one failed boobyhatch to the next.

Indeed, its meaning has changed, it used to be a badge of success, now, well, not so much.

[helius]

If IGG were a regulated market the regulators would be preparing some formal action or prosecution at this point purely over the non-publication of that information.

The fact that such information is regularly suppressed on IGG suggests that there may be contributory negligence at work.

[Cerebus]

If IGG were a regulated market the regulators would be preparing some formal action or prosecution at this point purely over the non-publication of that information.

The fact that such information is regularly suppressed on IGG suggests that there may be contributory negligence at work.

Indeed. My concern is that the Bobs and the others of his ilk are going to attract mandatory regulation to an investment scheme that, for its original intended purpose and audience, worked well and highly efficiently. It would be terrible if small, cheap, community based investment became impracticable because it attracted a level of red tape more normally associated with a full stock market listing. IGG and their ilk must take some blame in this for not exercising a sensible level of self-regulation.

I was heavily involved in the early days of the Internet in the UK being, among other things, a non-executive director of the London Internet Exchange. Reasonably effective self-regulation by the industry kept the government off our backs for more years than I expected, at least 10 or 15, even with the usual moral panic and outrage that accompanies any significant social change. IGG and others should take note and start cleaning up their act before they hear those chilling words: "Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you.".

[LabSpokane]

Worse than government regulation, this type of bad behavior will severely limit available capital for starting and growing business. Folks will just soak more money into municipal bonds with near zero risk.

[Cerebus]

Worse than government regulation, this type of bad behavior will severely limit available capital for starting and growing business. Folks will just soak more money into municipal bonds with near zero risk.

Have you seen how many US municipalities have become or are on the brink of bankruptcy? Not quite so low risk any more.

As it is, I think that the kind of investors that crowdfunding originally attracted are still there and will still invest in the kind of projects that were the early grist for the crowdfunding mill, as long as the cesspit it's becoming gets flushed out and cleaned up in short order. Sadly, I suspect that will not happen and a good idea will have been trashed for all time, but I hope that I'm wrong.

[LabSpokane]

Worse than government regulation, this type of bad behavior will severely limit available capital for starting and growing business. Folks will just soak more money into municipal bonds with near zero risk.

Have you seen how many US municipalities have become or are on the brink of bankruptcy? Not quite so low risk any more.

As it is, I think that the kind of investors that crowdfunding originally attracted are still there and will still invest in the kind of projects that were the early grist for the crowdfunding mill, as long as the cesspit it's becoming gets flushed out and cleaned up in short order. Sadly, I suspect that will not happen and a good idea will have been trashed for all time, but I hope that I'm wrong.

Without going too far off topic, a bond fund paying 7% every month is readily available and beats 100% loss of equity 90+% of the time. Of course, tech is still a gold rush and that certainly attract a different type of investor.

Like the housing bubble, and the horizontal gas/oil drilling bubble, I think there is going to be a VC bubble. 

[g.lewarne]

Still no official "Batteroo vs Energizer" update on indegogo
No Facebook updates of any kind since 8th May
No Indegogo comment replies since April


Are they just giving up?  hoping all this will go away?  Burying their heads in the sand ?