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

[TheAmmoniacal]

It might be going too far to directly say the document is fake, and I wouldn't encourage Dave to say it. But let's be real, it's fake.

1. It looks nothing like an official document I've ever seen...

Obviously UL didn't issue that document, but that doesn't mean the certification itself isn't real.

Good. We can agree on that. Most comments seemed to suggest it was though.. That was my impression.

[Chipguy]

The UL provides a form where you can tell them your concerns for safety OR advertising 

The page starts like this:
"If you would like to report a safety-related concern with a product bearing a UL Mark or an advertising concern, please complete and submit the form below. If any of the fields are not applicable, please enter NA."

So it could be helpful to tell them your concern about the falsified looking document here:
http://ul.com/offerings/market-surveillance/

They also accept pictures. Download it and upload it to the form. Include the link as well (very important)
http://www.batteriser.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/UL-pic1.jpg

[LabSpokane]

If the report is genuine, why not just put up the PDF?  Why fabricate something that obviously was NOT generated by UL? 

Every time Bateroo tries to make themselves seem more legitimate, they end up going in the opposite direction. It is strange to say the least that the "evidence" of this test is actually Batteroo's own test procedure. Why not show UL's *conclusions*? That is what matters.

[dexters_lab]

there's no way that picture is the original, certainly i would expect to have a multi-page document describing the purpose of the test, some kind of theory, setup, details of the test equipment, results and a conclusion.

it could be the real document has some sensitive information in it which they dont want us to see and they just shopped one up instead

it's a shame the picture shown of the new red batteriser (the latest version) shown on the document is not any clearer as it's the first picture to show the inside of the clip and the underside of the pcb which seems to contain most of the components. I do find it odd they never show a detailed pic of this area 

[5ky]

So I just woke up and luckily the logging software was still going strong.  It was pretty easy to find the time when the unit shut off because it's where the voltage started climbing (and was no longer "noisy").

And you know what?  I started the test at 5:36pm last night, and when I checked the logs, it shut off at 10:49 am today.  That's what, 17 hours?  They were definitely not being honest about something.  I didn't see any change in current between when it was searching for satellites and when it was locked on.  (if there was a difference, it wasn't enough for it to jump out at me)  I might have to check again.  I'll have to watch the current when it's just been turned on (and obviously still searching for the 3-4+ locks), then see what the current looks like after it has a solid lock.

Will upload graph, timelapse, video to youtube, etc sometime today.

EDIT: typos--I shouldn't attempt to type without getting some caffeine 

[dcac]

^^Excellent work 5ky!


About the UL test, how would UL know which performance they actually are testing, the Batteriser, or the Garmin GPS. It would seem logical to first verify that the Garmin GPS is without faults and working according to its specifications, else the test results would only be valid for the GPS unit(s) that Batteroo provided.

And as I understand it this particular GPS is already outdated so it would be difficult to verify its performance, at least on a 'new in box’ unit.

[5ky]

Data is beautiful!

So, I got it into excel and started massaging the data and got it into a nice graph.  VERY interesting results.  You can very clearly tell at what point the screen dimmed because it plateaus.  (again, I'm going to make a video today to put on youtube because people need to see this a real apples to apples test like this to show that batteriser is being very dishonest in their claims)

EDIT: this also means that if we didn't use the stupid servo to keep the screen on, this thing would probably easily do 20-25+ hours on fresh AA's

Link to the full resolution screenshot (beware, I run 4k monitors so the screenshot is HUGE):

[Kean]

Data is beautiful!

Nice work!  Can you check the firmware version for us?

[PeterL]

Data is beautiful!

So, I got it into excel and started massaging the data and got it into a nice graph.  VERY interesting results.  You can very clearly tell at what point the screen dimmed because it plateaus.  (again, I'm going to make a video today to put on youtube because people need to see this a real apples to apples test like this to show that batteriser is being very dishonest in their claims)

EDIT: this also means that if we didn't use the stupid servo to keep the screen on, this thing would probably easily do 20-25+ hours on fresh AA's

Nice work!
And while a result like this was logical and to be expected, I find it quite shocking to see confirmed what we already suspected: They manipulated their test like crazy, just to get the result they needed.

Just wow!

[5ky]

Data is beautiful!

Nice work!  Can you check the firmware version for us?

Software Version: 3.10
GPS Software Version: 4.25
CourseView Americas: 4.30

[edy]

Batteriser's UL supposed "test" had one of the conditions for terminating the test as "either GPS unit shuts down competely OR until the GPS unit displays a Low Battery Power message". Nothing about measuring voltage or current.

Since we all know this particular Garmin device has a setting for alkaline batteries and is programmed to monitor the voltage down and display a warning message at some voltage, we can easily figure out using 5ky's excellent graph what that voltage is. I'd say about 1.75 hours into the graph we have 2.7 V for the pair or 1.35 V per cell!!

The Batteriser does nothing but trick the firmware in the Garmin to not display the warning message. We can also calculate the efficiency of having it in the device from a fresh new pair of batteries. It lasted only 10 hours while 5ky's test shows 17+ hours?

If UL oversaw the test, all they can say is what is obvious to anyone who understands this. They can attest to the setup of the test and that the conditions (as stated) were followed truthfully.

Batteroo states in their UL press release that regular batteries resulted in termination of the test after 1 hour 43 minutes due to "GPS shutting down". I bet you this is a BLATANT LIE and the real reason for termination of the test was the second condition (after the OR) which is the low battery power warning came on. Otherwise, why would they have even had an "OR" at all!?

[5ky]

Batteriser's UL supposed "test" had one of the conditions for terminating the test as "either GPS unit shuts down competely OR until the GPS unit displays a Low Battery Power message". Nothing about measuring voltage or current.

Since we all know this particular Garmin device has a setting for alkaline batteries and is programmed to monitor the voltage down and display a warning message at some voltage, we can easily figure out using 5ky's excellent graph what that voltage is.

The Batteriser does nothing but trick the firmware in the Garmin to not display the warning message. We can also calculate the efficiency of having it in the device from a fresh new pair of batteries. It lasted only 10 hours while 5ky's test shows 17+ hours?

If UL oversaw the test, all they can say is what is obvious to anyone who understands this. They can a test to the setup of the test and that the conditions (as stated) were followed truthfully.

Batteroo states in their UL press release that regular batteries resulted in termination of the test after 1 hour 43 minutes due to "GPS shutting down". I bet you this is a BLATANT LIE and the real reason for termination of the test was the second condition (after the OR) which is the low battery power warning came on. Otherwise, why would they have even had an "OR" at all!?

It's absolutely a lie.  The screen didn't dim on my unit until 7 hours into the test where you can clearly see the change in discharge rate.  I have no idea how they only managed to get 1.8 hrs.

EDIT: I found this hilarious comment on their gps testing video:

"Dude. I have that GPS, It lasts way longer than 2 hours, that waning message is just telling you that it is reducing screen brightness because you are using regular batteries rather than rechargeable."

Someone who owns that GPS unit saw the video and commented.  Hilarious.  I hope more people comment like that.

[firewalker]

Did you receive the same message with your unit?

Alexander.

[5ky]

Did you receive the same message with your unit?

Alexander.

Yes, but I didn't witness it because I wasn't going to stare at the screen for 17 straight hours 

I did, however, test using bench power supply before I did all this to see at what voltages you get the messages and there is definitely a message about screen brightness when the device is set to alkaline mode.  It just dims the screen a little and you push "ok" and the message goes away.  If you set the battery type to nimh or lipo the message never shows up and the screen never dims.

[onlooker]

Data is beautiful!

Very good!

As other's have mentioned, one more test of interest is to set the battery type to NiMH while using Alkaline. This will tell if Batteriser has even an advantage of delaying the dim warning message.

Regardless how Batteriser defines the termination point, a simpler question is  why Batteriser's data showed only about 2 hours before backlight dimming (vs 6 hours here). Maybe, they want to redo their tests without inserting current metering. If UL really tested the timing as Batteriser claimed, UL will need to explain the discrepancy too.

[firewalker]

Judging from the message it self, there shouldn't be message when in NiMH mode.

Alexander.

[learningrc]

I do quite a bit of work getting products tested with UL and I can say without a doubt that that isn't an official UL document, unless they edited it.  Here is some info for those not familiar with how UL works:

1) The "UL Project Number" is an internal number for a project.  It won't be on any official documents or the UL file search..  If, for example, I want to make a change to one of our UL files, I submit a request and then that request is given a UL project number.  It is odd that that number was even given out to the public - its a temporary number that really only has significance while the project is open.
2) The UL search that was linked to earlier (http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/cgifind/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.html) should show results if there is UL file for the Batteriser.  I found nothing searching for "Batteriser" or "Batteroo."  That could just mean the UL testing isn't complete yet.
3) As somebody mentioned, UL files start with an E, followed by a bunch of numbers.  UL takes every product it certifies and places it in a certain UL category.  For example, I work with electric motors and the UL category code for most of our stuff is PRGY2.  So our file is usually designated as PRGY2.E______.  (Try searching for "PRGY2 and you'll get a whole bunch of motor manufacturers.)
4) When you get UL product approval, UL sends you a document that lets the UL inspector that visit your factory know what he needs to inspect for.  It contains construction details, information on what markings need to be on the product and in some cases if the inspector needs to witness any safety tests.  Every page in that report has header information that lists the E file number, the Volume, the Section and the page number of the file.
5) That sort of test wouldn't be included in a report and wouldn't even be something UL would test for.  UL has tons of standards that detail how products need to be constructed and what safety tests they need to pass.  There is no way that one of UL's standard tests would use a specific GPS model in a test like this.  And UL doesn't care how well your product performs.  It cares about things like whether your product will start a fire or shock somebody or explode.  For motors, for example, they care about things like what our insulation is made out of and how thick it is.  They care about clearances and creepage.  On some motors they perform locked rotor tests to make sure the thermal cutouts work before the motor gets too hot for its insulation class.  That's the sort of stuff they care about.

If you have any questions, let me know.

[5ky]

Judging from the message it self, there should be message when in NiMH mode.

Alexander.

nope, the message mentions using NiMH or Lipo instead to avoid the limitation:

[Kean]

Had another close look at the GPS video, and can see the Dataq logger is measuring the voltage, and the Hantek 365 is measuring current on its 10A range.  I also discovered this has been discussed a while back starting around post 459: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-%28the-batteriser%29/msg727461/#msg727461

So, does anyone have a Hantek 365 so they can measure the burden voltage on 10A range?  It isn't specified in the manual.

[onlooker]

Quote from: firewalker on Today at 06:30:32 AM
   

Judging from the message it self, there should be message when in NiMH mode.
    Alexander.

nope, the message mentions using NiMH or Lipo instead to avoid the limitation:

I meant if there are some dim message (of different wording) for NiMH mode, it will be interesting to see if it will show up before or after the 10 hour point (the time interval Batteriser claimed to have extended to).   

[firewalker]

Judging from the message it self, there should be message when in NiMH mode.

Alexander.

nope, the message mentions using NiMH or Lipo instead to avoid the limitation:

I just forgot the "not" in my sentence.

Alexander.

[photon]

I agree. Venture Capitalists are interested in a return on their investment.... not whether something actually works or not. They are only interested in getting back their money with interest and throwing on to the next chum (whether it be other public investors, crowd-funders, another company) to sort it all out.

I think the biggest blunder Batteriser did was then probably to crowd-fund their product. They should have just launched with "TV INFOMMERCIALS" and made money the old fashioned way, without anyone ever having the opportunity or time to critique it. I can see it now... 

"Call now, for a limited time you can get yours for only $9.99. But wait, there's more! And it's not sold in any store! If you are one of the first to call, you will not only get 1 Batteriser... But 2! Yes! Double your order! Not satisfied? We will also throw in this battery tester valued at over $20. Oh hold on... We are going crazy here at the factory. We are willing to give you not 2, but 4! Yes 4! If you call in the next 10 minutes! Do it now before this incredible offer disappears forever! You get 4 Batterisers each valued at $9.99, a battery tester for $20, a total value of almost $60..... All yours for ONLY $9.99 (plus shipping and handling of $14.99 and sales taxes not included)."

 

I don't believe that a VC doesn't care about whether a product works. There are, after all, financial consequences to fraud, and if Batteriser is not a fraud but a scam, there are consequences to a VC's reputation which again leads to financial consequences. What is fascinating about Batteriser is that they have reputable EE management and a reputable VC who seem to have the unmitigated gall to believe that they can get away with this. To me it seems like suicide on their part. 

[5ky]

Judging from the message it self, there should be message when in NiMH mode.

Alexander.

nope, the message mentions using NiMH or Lipo instead to avoid the limitation:

I just forgot the "not" in my sentence.

Alexander.

Ah, I see.  In the other modes, the message does not show up.  The only thing the "setting" changes is in lithium and nimh modes, the screen dim (and message) are disabled, and it also changes the voltage at which the low battery alert comes on.  So, you could technically use alkalines and just set the battery type to lithium and not have the screen dim.  Most of the time, in real use, you wouldn't have the backlight on anyways because those screen are VERY readable in direct sunlight. 

[timofonic]

I really think it's time for Dave to get his hands on this Approach G3 and make some comments to the technical video and their recent UL 'certification' / document!

It might be going too far to directly say the document is fake, and I wouldn't encourage Dave to say it. But let's be real, it's fake.

1. It looks nothing like an official document I've ever seen, it has spelling mistakes and awkward grammar.
2. The UL logo is missing the copyright logo.
3. It looks nothing likely any UL report/certification I can find online: http://www.multi-contact.com/AcroFiles/Zertifikate/UL/UL_E351413_CND_%28en%29.pdf or http://www.gadgetplusstore.com/sites/default/files/uploads/1274255303%26%2609.jpg
4. A company like UL would most definitely use a fixed template.
5. No technical information is listed, no signatures, dates, reference numbers, issueee, etc.
6. It's a screen capture of a Word document (JPG), not PDF.
7. Inconsistent use of language, says the test is terminated when a low battery message is displayed - while at the same time saying the GPS shuts down when the test ends (without batteriser).
etc etc.

Anyone who knows more can give more points I am sure.

The document only makes sense if this is the procedure provided by Batteroo and sent to UL for them to test. i.e. Batteroo's own findings that they want UL to replicate. But then, why the UL logo?

May I say conspiranoid and even more crazy than usual if I think about the following?

- Who's that teacher and his workers at this startup?
* Is his identity and degree really verified?
* Where did he get his degree from (I hope not from one of those infamous fake universities [1] [2] ?
- Is his university officially aware of his entrepreneur activity at Batteroo Inc and supports him in some way? Does somebody from his university department support his efforts and product capabilities?
- Any information about this information with some feedback about the education quality and resources of this university?
* Feedback from former students, despite being known in the industry or just anonymous faces.
* Former and current workers.
* Reports and feedback from government, charities, companies and other kind of institutions.

[TheAmmoniacal]

Indiegogo campgain update:

Must read if your children use battery powered toys and devices:
According to Energizer mixing old and new batteries in a device can cause a “leakage or rupture, resulting in personal injury or property damage”.  Kodak, Rayovac, Varta, and the consumer advocate group National Center for Healthy Housing all recognize the issue.
Batteriser technology eliminates this problem by preventing batteries it is installed on from discharging to an unsafe level and allowing old batteries to provide the same amount of instantaneous power as a new battery.
Sources that recognize this issue:
http://www.consumer.org.my/index.php/safety/household/224-batteries-can-leak-overheat-and-rupture-causing-chemical-burns-to-your-kids
http://www.nchh.org/Portals/0/Contents/CPSC_Battery_Burns.pdf
http://www.kodakbatteries.strandeurope.com/Safety/Things-Not-To-Do
http://www.rayovac.com/learning/battery-care.aspx
http://www.energizer.com/about-batteries/battery-care
http://www.duracell.com/en-us/battery-care-and-disposal
 
Have a wonderful and safe weekend!
http://igg.me/at/batteriser

Anyone explain how the Batteriser prevents leakage or rupture when mixing old with new? What is the cause of the problems with mixing old with new?