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

[HighVoltage]

They are engaged in damage control. Disabling comments, deleting comments are telltale signs of panic.

But why should they panic now?
Their goal was to raise $30,000 and they are now at $ 273,150
So, no matter what they do, they will have a quarter million in their pocket in a coupe of days.

The problem starts when they make this thing and people will return it and eventually there will possible a class action law suit against the corporation for misleading.
But for now, they are just fine.

It really is an embarrassment for the real world of engineering.
 

[Mr-Beamer]

nuff said

[LabSpokane]

They are engaged in damage control. Disabling comments, deleting comments are telltale signs of panic.

But why should they panic now?
Their goal was to raise $30,000 and they are now at $ 273,150
So, no matter what they do, they will have a quarter million in their pocket in a coupe of days.

They're crapping themselves because their backers, SK Telecom, are pissed. The goal isn't to make Batterisers. The goal is a second round of funding followed by an IPO. As of now, that isn't possible. Their retail channel partners have obviously abandoned them.

And that money from IndieGoGo is more of a liability than anything. They're better off giving refunds at this point. They're in this never never land of having orders and fair bit of them, but not enough orders to not tape a dollar bill or three to every order. No CM is going to buy  and stock the MOQs necessary for the Batteriser's price point without Batteroo taking liability. And Batteroo doesn't have the assets to do it themselves.

It's a total nightmare for these guys. If they have any smarts, they'll pull the plug.

[lpickup]

They are engaged in damage control. Disabling comments, deleting comments are telltale signs of panic.

They even removed the "Discussion" area from their YouTube page.  Not that they were allowing public comments there either, but it at least provided a convenient way for me to ask them how I am supposed to ask questions (like they promised) about the new video, and also to point out to them that there is no reason for them to disable comments if their claims are true and can be backed up, since a large community of EE's would happily chime in and correct naysayers who would make non-factual statements.  So if they really believe what they are saying, there should be no reason at all to disable comments.

[Fungus]

Their goal was to raise $30,000

That was never a real goal. $30,000 will go nowhere when you're trying to mass produce something like the batterizer.

Besides, they had $1 million in funding six months ago. Why would they need another $30,000?

If there's a 'goal' for the Indiegogo campaign it's to be able to point to a "successful crowdfunding" as part of their scam (hoping nobody notices it was a fake campaign because they already had some venture capitalists behind them).

Pretty soon people are going to want to own their own batterizers. As soon they have to deliver the IndieGoGo rewards the game is up. I'm expecting about 60% of the normal battery life except for very low power devices. People will surely notice that. Anybody really expecting 8x battery life is going to be very disappointed.

After that it only takes one major news story or one syndicated TV program to totally destroy them as far as an IPO, a big military contract, ...or whatever other plan they have in mind goes.

[Hugoneus]

I really hope that Dave makes a response video to this.  O0 I know at this point it is a waste of his time, but it would be so entertaining.

And thanks Dave for all that you have done already.

[SundayProgrammer]

Still no video of Batteriser in action? Come on... Enough chitchat, Bob. If you actually have a working prototype or a final product you would show the clapping monkey with Batteriser already.
This is a hoax and they keep it alive as long as possible to collect investors' money (and laugh all the way to bank). Are we involved in keeping this hoax alive by keep on analyzing this...

Axel.

[Halcyon]

If I'm throwing away batteries with unknown capacity left, it's because I'm going away, and want new batteries in my digital camera, or I've removed them from a device that I haven't used, or don't plan to use, for a while, and don't want to risk them leaking...

Other than that, they get left in devices till they'll no longer function, at which point the cells are depleted!

Likewise, especially when I'm doing anything with my audio/video gear. Fresh batteries every time I use them. I don't bother checking the state of the 'used' ones. In most cases they are probably half empty or less.

Bollocks to that Dave!  Keep prodding them until they admit defeat!

It gets tiring, like debating young earth creationists. It's fun for a while and then you just have to give up.
I won't get around to doing a responsive video for quite a while on this one (if I have the enthusiasm after watching it), too much else going on.
It would be great if others could also pick up the baton. I can't be the only one in town doing the public video debunking.

What about mini-Dave? Does a uni student know more than Batteriser's "engineers"? My bets are on Dave ;-)

[McBryce]

Anyway, they got the funds to start production. Max. 10% - 20% of the customers will bother asking for a refund, so they will still have the 80% - 90% profit in their pockets.

So that's the residual 80% they've been talking about all along! Finally it's starting to make sense

McBryce.

[Rasz]

There is no way you could do a 40min video like that, showing your face without believing for even 1ns on what you are saying.

there is $1M ways I would do it, naked, while singing Mariah Carey, badly!


edit: they disabled ratings and comments on videos, that leaves only one option : More / Report / Spam or misleading / SCAMS or FRAUD

[edy]

   At this point, I agree with Dave as well.... I am just getting a headache from all this! 

Let's put a reminder in our calendars for 3 months and then do a video on the *** ACTUAL BATTERISER *** once it gets delivered to your hands. They are AT THE END of their IndieGogo campaign. The flame war is getting stronger and stronger, and I can see why Dave doesn't want to be dragged into this pissy impossible-to-win debate any longer. It's starting to get TOO PERSONAL and no longer about the Engineering/Science.   

I VOTE FOR 1 MORE VIDEO IN 3 MONTHS!     Then we watch!

Batteriser *ACTUAL* teardown and *ACTUAL* performance testing on a number of different devices. Now that is the only video I want to ever see again regarding Batteriser.


Here are some other campaigns I'm watching (which have been funded) which I set a reminder to check up on in a few years:

- The Light Phone
- Airing

No point looking at them every day. Waste of time. In 2 years we will see the results.

[firewalker]

I really hope that Dave makes a response video to this.  O0 I know at this point it is a waste of his time, but it would be so entertaining.

And thanks Dave for all that you have done already.

Couldn't you make a response (like the one for over unity)? It will become too personal and arduous for a single person busting their claims.

Alexander.

[EEVblog]

edit: they disabled ratings and comments on videos

Ah, yes, now disabled comments on ALL their videos. All previous comments gone.
They obviously were totally embarrassed by that idiot "fan" threatening people so they pulled the plug on everything to shut him/them up.
Good move on their part, but now that makes them look even more dodgy than what they already do.
Rock and a hard place.

[firewalker]

What about the number of Up/Down thumbs?

Alexander.

[EEVblog]

I really hope that Dave makes a response video to this.  O0 I know at this point it is a waste of his time, but it would be so entertaining.
And thanks Dave for all that you have done already.

Couldn't you make a response (like the one for over unity)? It will become too personal and arduous for a single person busting their claims.

Yes, got to be careful not to make this personal. It's not personal of course, but it can certainly come across that way.
I've got an idea for a response video.
As I understand it (still haven't watch it all) their major claim now (they keep moving the goal posts, it's so hard to keep up) is that pulse currents cause product dropouts due to IR.
Ok, fair enough claim, so take a bunch of products like I did in my original video and capture the battery voltage (no need for the current) with the product working on near dead batteries (so the IR is highest). See if:
a) There are any significant battery voltage dips at all
and
b) If there are dips, do they cause the product to fail?

So once again show if the Batteriser, by demonstration, is suitable for all products, or just a few edge cases.
And of course (as I understand it), they haven't demonstrated that the Batteriser does anything to actually help dips like this anyway. It's all just whiteboard hand waving.

[EEVblog]

What about the number of Up/Down thumbs?

Nope, the Thumbs are gone too on all videos.
http://movie-sounds.org/quotes/indylostark/Wiped-clean-by-the-wrath-of-God.mp3

[Hugoneus]

Thanks Dave. You are right that it is important to not give the illusion that this is personal, it really isn't. If this product actually worked we would be praising it.

[EEVblog]

I start to think that he beleive that as the batteratruc is forcing the output voltage to 1.5V, that why "constant current" form a rectangle, and why only a rectangle is the only way to calculate the remaining power.

I've watched that bit and understand what he's trying to say here (that with CC (with some error) (and CW) you can just read the % remaining from the X axis), and what's he's trying to say is essentially right. But it's a poor way to explain it.

[EEVblog]

They are engaged in damage control. Disabling comments, deleting comments are telltale signs of panic.

But why should they panic now?
Their goal was to raise $30,000 and they are now at $ 273,150
So, no matter what they do, they will have a quarter million in their pocket in a coupe of days.

They're crapping themselves because their backers, SK Telecom, are pissed. The goal isn't to make Batterisers. The goal is a second round of funding followed by an IPO. As of now, that isn't possible. Their retail channel partners have obviously abandoned them.

Yep, my money is on that scenario.

And that money from IndieGoGo is more of a liability than anything. They're better off giving refunds at this point. They're in this never never land of having orders and fair bit of them, but not enough orders to not tape a dollar bill or three to every order. No CM is going to buy  and stock the MOQs necessary for the Batteriser's price point without Batteroo taking liability. And Batteroo doesn't have the assets to do it themselves.

That is quite possible, and that is very common in the startup/crowd funding hardware world. This is discussed on the Amp Hour all the time.

[LabSpokane]

I really hope that Dave makes a response video to this.  O0 I know at this point it is a waste of his time, but it would be so entertaining.
And thanks Dave for all that you have done already.

Couldn't you make a response (like the one for over unity)? It will become too personal and arduous for a single person busting their claims.

Yes, got to be careful not to make this personal. It's not personal of course, but it can certainly come across that way.
I've got an idea for a response video.
As I understand it (still haven't watch it all) their major claim now (they keep moving the goal posts, it's so hard to keep up) is that pulse currents cause product dropouts due to IR.

The problem is that Brothers Roohparvar are changing their YouTube claims while maintaining their (largely) original and demonstrably false claims on their website and IGG page.  I don't see why anyone should to chase this new claim.  It's a waste of time. Nothing changes the essential fact that their *premises* are utterly flawed:

The devices they are showing on their site are NOT leaving 80% of the energy unused in an alkaline cell.  There is no 800% or whatever the number is today of runtime to recover out of a cell that a device has run to 1.1V or less. 

Lastly, the Batteriser is utterly, unmistakably in the over-unity device category now.  Frankie's whiteboard explanation illustrates clearly that is what they are claiming.  There really doesn't need to be another video debunking because Batteroo thoroughly debunked themselves in under ten minutes. 

[FrankBuss]

So once again show if the Batteriser, by demonstration, is suitable for all products, or just a few edge cases.
And of course (as I understand it), they haven't demonstrated that the Batteriser does anything to actually help dips like this anyway. It's all just whiteboard hand waving.

They tried to demonstrate this for the Garmin Approach G3 device, which they repeated in this video and in great unnecessary detail with scope diagrams, but failed, because for all what we know, it didn't stop functioning when it shows the message that the backlight is turned off, as they claimed.

[Godzil]

I start to think that he beleive that as the batteratruc is forcing the output voltage to 1.5V, that why "constant current" form a rectangle, and why only a rectangle is the only way to calculate the remaining power.

I've watched that bit and understand what he's trying to say here (that with CC (with some error) (and CW) you can just read the % remaining from the X axis), and what's he's trying to say is essentially right. But it's a poor way to explain it.

Hum, you mean that for example, if with at a specified constant current or power, the deplete in 100 hour (to make thing simpler) , when we are at 50h of use, basically, it remain 50% of the battery?
Then at 90h it only remain 10%?

Hum make sense in a way

[_Andrew_]

46 minutes of marketing smoke

OK so they have found a device that is susceptible to becoming unstable due to self generated impulse currents pulling down the battery voltage below a voltage at which it can not opperate.

Still right at the beginning they still show footage a battery being tested off load.

Agrees that at an average cut off voltage of 1.1v that there may be for instance be 10% of the battery charge left but then argues about which is the correct part of the curve to look at when determining remaining charge. So agrees that the arguments that have been presented are correct about the amount of remaining charge are correct, wrong and correct.

A point they made clear is that from the outset there clames have made using mathematical models as it was not viable to conduct actual real life testing as it would have taken to long. Funny that, when I have been involved with product development, putting the design through its paces with real life testing has been a vital part of the development.

There still also missing the point that well designed battery operated electronic devices commonly already have boost converters in them to eek out as much life as possible from the batteries. 

I still wonder how many products there going to have to pay for to be repaired or replace when the cells get stuck inside because the sleeves make the cells diameter to wide.

So OK there product probably does function, may assist electronic devices that do not take advantage of boost converters in there design. Where it has got messy is firstly they made to grander clames at the outset, secondly over estimating the typical cutoff voltage (and subsequently the remaining un-used charge), thirdly measuring the battery voltage not under load.

They will probably still sell them, quite possibly on late those night info-mercial channels or re-branded under JML products. Shift a load and then project there future sales on these results, sell the company to someone else, then start another company and launch another product and do the same again.

[edy]

Can someone please explain what is happening at 9:20 in the new video? I see a Voltage vs. Time graph (discharge curve), and then the area under the graph representing the "energy left" in the battery? But then he starts drawing milliAmps where the Volt axis is. I'm very confused.

What I understand is that "Volts x Time" is meaningless without understanding the current draw. So it really is "Amps x Time" that is important to rate capacity? MilliAmpHours? Is that what is going on here? And he is saying that he can just use the same 100 mA draw all along the entire voltage discharge curve (whether boosting or limiting) and expect the curve to follow the same curve?

Then later at 10:50 he goes over how higher amperage drawing devices you get worse milliAmpHour ratings due to inefficiencies in the battery (probably chemical reaction inefficiencies due to higher and slower rate and diffusion characteristics of the chemicals in the battery). So lower current draw means longer use of battery which ends up giving you better milliAmpHour rating.

But devices draw the current they need to function, no? Isn't that a product of their internal resistance/load and the voltage being applied to the device? If you want to lower the current draw you will need to have a current limiter which will need to starve the device of current. But how would you know how much to starve it so it still works? And if you are limiting current but increasing voltage, is that the idea behind Batteriser?

So basically, by reducing or "buffering" the current draw by reducing the current pulses/spikes, you reduce the drops in voltage (or "even out" the voltage variations) and therefore keep longer above the cutoff voltage so avoid spikes causing it to shut off. Current sensor and limiter..... Not a voltage booster at all? Just indirectly boosting voltage as a side-effect of sensing voltage and limiting current (while still trying to keep the device working) to keep the battery voltage as high as possible for long as possible?

And so the premise here is that the Batteriser will work best on devices which have more variations or "glitches" in the current draw, versus devices that have very minimal swings in current draw?

[EEVblog]

Hum, you mean that for example, if with at a specified constant current or power, the deplete in 100 hour (to make thing simpler) , when we are at 50h of use, basically, it remain 50% of the battery?
Then at 90h it only remain 10%?
Hum make sense in a way

For constant power, yes, absolutely, that's how it works. Because battery capacity of measured in Wh, and you are draining at a constant Wh.
Of course, in practice with a boost converter like the Batteriser, nothing will ever be constant power because of the efficiency curve, but that's beside the point here.
For a constant current, no. But as I've shown in a recent video, and on that graph, the slope is fairly linear, but it's a close approximation.
So what he's (I think) getting at is essentially correct. But once again, it's exactly the same thing I've been saying and showing. Nothing new here at all, his point is pointless. And he made no mention of constant power and how that works. Why he'd omit easy and obvious explanation I don't know.