Author Topic: Batteroo testing  (Read 150223 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline lordvader88

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 502
  • Country: ca
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #625 on: March 16, 2018, 02:49:35 pm »
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #626 on: March 16, 2018, 09:59:21 pm »
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)

If you want to see much discussion, look at the general discussion thread  :)

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/

I guess the reason why so many people are interested in it, is their hilarious claim to get 800% more out of a battery in their initial marketing, and some engineers want to debunk such silly numbers.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2818
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #627 on: March 17, 2018, 02:20:25 am »
Watching the Charlie-Foxtrot that is Battero is what counts as entertainment for many engineers, that's why the thread is so long. That combined with the incredulity that many have watching the marketing machine grind away at a product that, examined with a little science, cannot meet its claims.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8095
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #628 on: March 19, 2018, 06:42:01 pm »
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)

Because if more people listened to engineers those millions might have been spent on something that improves the world, not to buy some new suits for people like the Batteroo Brothers.

 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 7067
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #629 on: March 21, 2018, 06:56:03 pm »
Why does this product have so much discussion, and why do so many people on here care ???? I'm just very surprised at the # of posts (and now this 1)

I would re-quote every one of the posts above - but just read them again for me...  :)

If you thought this thread was long, just look at the thread that brought this product into the EEVblog forum. (Link given by FrankBuss above.)

It's a classic tale where engineers - or anyone with half an appreciation of the factors involved - took up the challenge to call out the marketing beat-up that was the Batteroo Sleeve.


Now sit back my little munchkins.  Snuggle up in your blanky and wrap your hands around that delicious mug of hot chocolate and I'll tell you a story....

The entire saga played out over a period of years, with a lack of technical information supplied by Batteroo being filled in by engineering guesses - and the little in the way of numbers supplied by Batteroo relating to battery chemistry held out to the ridicule it deserved.  Some of those guesses were based on existing technologies that we fully expected Batteroo to be following and they turned out to be pretty darn close.  One that we were slightly off about was the battery life indicator issue.  However, once we had some real data, we were able to make a more accurate statement.  Basically, battery life indicators wouldn't be totally useless - they would be next to useless.

The veil of non-communication smelled awfully like a straight out scam for so long - but we were given teasers that suggested there might be a real product.  (We even had some efforts made by members here to create their own prototypes.)  Some time later - we actually see a real product!!

When we finally get our hands on them, we find it is exactly what we had guessed it would be - and we did, indeed, congratulate Batteroo for making a very good effort in the miniaturisation and capabilities (even if there were some questions on the mechanical construction).  But even making a very good product didn't get around one fundamental problem ... the chemistry of the batteries to be used in their product just DID NOT HAVE the energy available that Batteroo was claiming to be able to extract.  Their marketing claims were, as we call it in Australia, bullshit.  Even after "adjusting" some of their claims, it was still bullshit.

Oh, and along the way we got to hear claims of the mysterious involvement of "Big Battery" who were trying to secretly undermine this "threat" to their business.  We all thought that was as funny as hell.

There was one brand name that did step in - Eveready - but that had absolutely nothing to do with the product per se.  It was to do with the original name for the product: Batteriser.  As I understand it, Eveready felt the audible similarity between "Batteriser" and "Energizer" was enough to cause potential confusion in the marketplace - where the Batteriser might be thought to be part of the Energizer range of product offerings.  With this and having a very good idea of what the Batteriser product would bring to the marketplace, I can completely understand Eveready wanting to have some distance.  Also, Batteroo would have gained some marketing benefit by this.  Eveready pursued this and it seems the matter was settled quietly.  From that point onward, the product became known as the Batteroo Sleeve.  Eveready did, however, show a kindness.  They allowed Batteroo to use up materials already manufactured that had "Batteriser" on them, but any new product, packaging and marketing would have to change.

With the product now available, lots of people started doing lots of testing and lots of "testimonials" were offered.  Batteroo even had a competition or two going offering prizes for the best testimonials.  You can imagine how objective those were.  Batteroo claims started becoming more "qualified", but as time went by, the inevitable revelation begins to dawn on even those who really wanted to give the product a red hot go ... the engineers predictions were right.

There are still those who will champion the Batteroo Sleeve, shouting it from the rooftops, demonstrating this and (claiming to) "prove" that - but, at the end of the day, the Batteroo Sleeve doesn't come close to the original marketing claims ... and never can.  Their product is (dare I say it?) technically admirable, but it cannot extract energy that is simply unavailable.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 08:05:37 pm by Brumby »
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, nuno, Kean

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26159
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #630 on: March 21, 2018, 07:23:42 pm »
One that we were slightly off about was the battery life indicator issue.  However, once we had some real data, we were able to make a more accurate statement.  Basically, battery life indicators wouldn't be totally useless - they would be next to useless.

Yes, that was the only surprise, but it actually wasn't through good design, as all their initial marketing and claims said the output voltage would be completely flat at 1.5V. In practice it wasn't the case, and it seems like they relised after the fact that that might actually be somewhat beneficial.

Quote
When we finally get our hands on them, we find it is exactly what we had guessed it would be - and we did, indeed, congratulate Batteroo for making a very good effort in the miniaturisation and capabilities (even if there were some questions on the mechanical construction).  But even making a very good product didn't get around one fundamental problem ... the chemistry of the batteries to be used in their product just DID NOT HAVE the energy available that Batteroo was claiming to be able to extract.  Their marketing claims were, as we call it in Australia, bullshit.  Even after "adjusting" some of their claims, it was still bullshit.

And that's the thing with not only Batteroo, but many other things that have had their marketing claims been debunked on here, no matter how well you engineer and implement it, an impractical idea is still and impractical idea. The old "you can't polish a turd" thing.

Quote
Oh, and along the way we got to hear claims of the mysterious involvement of "Big Battery" who were trying to secretly undermine this "threat" to their business.  We all thought that was as funny as hell.

There was even more drama and intrigue than just technical. We had the owner of the "official" Batteroo Youtube channel threatend a 13yo blogger with physical violence. We had "someone" pay for dislikes on mine and other videos debunking Batteroo, Energizer taking them down for trademark infringement, fake paid-for testimonial videos, and we had Dr Bob personally slander me and threatening me with legal action in a national newspaper article. Among many other things I'm not remembering right now.
This was the ultimate soap opera engineering saga, everyone was tuning in each week to see what new stupid things Batteroo were saying or doing.
 

Offline Wilson

  • Newbie
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 4
  • Country: us
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #631 on: March 22, 2018, 06:47:29 pm »
They renamed themselves because Energizer was after their ass ???
 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 7067
  • Country: au
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #632 on: March 22, 2018, 07:18:22 pm »
They renamed themselves because Energizer was after their ass ???
Eveready wouldn't have given a stuff about Batteroo's ass.

Eveready just wanted to protect their extremely valuanble Energizer trademark.

Batteroo would have renamed their product because Eveready would have made it clear continuing with the original name would have been "problematic".
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 07:23:45 pm by Brumby »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26159
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #633 on: July 15, 2018, 07:45:31 pm »
I never did get around to testing that GPS, and I actually have the exact same model still sitting here gathering dust.
 

Offline Delta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1202
  • Country: gb
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #634 on: July 16, 2018, 04:26:39 am »
Do it.
DO.
IT!
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8095
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #635 on: July 16, 2018, 06:36:02 am »
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #636 on: July 17, 2018, 05:28:25 pm »
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.

You have to use real batteries. Batteroo will tell you that you can't use a power supply to simulate it and will explain it with some poor snails ;D
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26159
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #637 on: July 17, 2018, 08:35:37 pm »
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.

We had a touch screen mechanism set up to do the whole thing from memory.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8095
  • Country: 00
Re: Batteroo testing
« Reply #638 on: July 17, 2018, 11:45:32 pm »
It's a two minute video. Show the cutoff voltage, show the warning message, dismiss it, keep turning the voltage down.

You have to use real batteries. Batteroo will tell you that you can't use a power supply to simulate it and will explain it with some poor snails ;D

Dave has a fancy new analyser to show how the voltage-dipping argument is load of bollocks.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf