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

[LabSpokane]

OMG, the idiot factor is high. UL is not issuing certification, then there would be a UL logo with copyright stuff. They received test verification. I have used UL like that in the past. It is real, not faked. It means they cannot put UL on the retail package, but UL tested and verified their results.
I am not going to go off and buy a Garmin G3 and test it, but I know people that use it on the golf course and they complain it gets 9 hours tops and they are not tapping the screen every 12-15 seconds. So, not sure what this result below is, but if UL tested it and verified, then I would believe UL over some guy on a blog. Make all of the videos you want to, and I know you will, I would say good luck, but I do not care about any of this crap.

So, you admit that Batteroo's test is producing the incorrect result, and that this sub-2 hours result is baloney.  But you're calling the people who obtain results that also contradict Batteroo's (your) results "idiots." Care to tell where precisely that places *you* on the IQ scale? 

And good luck with the UL.  It really does appear that you're infringing their trademark. We'll start the timer for how long it takes for them to force you to retract your claims. 

[ccs46]

Every performance claim by Batteroo has now been completely destroyed. Care to start making some retractions there Bob?

Nope, he's got a UL report that trumps everything, and they'll ride that show pony all the way into town.

I bet they are now done and won't release any more videos or reply to any more technical claims. They'll keep mum until the dust settles.
They still haven't responded to my video about the paid dislikes, not a peep.

That UL report still means nothing towards it's performance. All that means its that it's won't kill you or catch on fire...

[ccs46]

But then, why the UL logo?

Anyone can pull the logo off google images and Photoshop it onto a document...

[tupapioso]

I took a look at the supposed UL photo in photoshop and it is quite clear (especially if you look at the red channel) that the UL logo has compression artifacts surrounding it that are probably the result of the UL logo being cut from another document and pasted on to this picture. Also if you run the photo through photoforensics.com you will see how suspicious the UL logo is.

[Simon]

OMG, the idiot factor is high. UL is not issuing certification, then there would be a UL logo with copyright stuff. They received test verification. I have used UL like that in the past. It is real, not faked. It means they cannot put UL on the retail package, but UL tested and verified their results.
I am not going to go off and buy a Garmin G3 and test it, but I know people that use it on the golf course and they complain it gets 9 hours tops and they are not tapping the screen every 12-15 seconds. So, not sure what this result below is, but if UL tested it and verified, then I would believe UL over some guy on a blog. Make all of the videos you want to, and I know you will, I would say good luck, but I do not care about any of this crap.

We call crap on you batterizer. Find me the text on the UL website that states that they test to see if products meet the manufacturer claims. No UL only test for safety not for veracity or in you case lack of fraudalent claims because you are all about fraud at this point.

Just look at the cliams on batterizer.com. It starts with "tap into 80% more" right so 80% more is actually 0.8 on top of what you originally had or 1.8 times capacity boost.

Then in the same paragragh it says that devices only tap into 20% of battery capacity and you can get the other 80% back for them, so 80%/20% = 4x not 8x as originally claimed and not the 1.8x claimed in the line above.

How stupid can batterizer get ? you can't even do basic and consistent maths in one paragraph (and I'm bad) 

Anyone who invested in this fraud should be getting their money back, to make a mistake is one thing to intentionally mislead people is called fraud in law. You go take a hard long look at yourself 

[Wytnucls]

Batteroo has been bragging about the miniaturization of their DC to DC converter (*), but if you look at the datasheet of the ADP1607 suggested by free_electron, you would see that the circuit layout published by Analog Devices already fits easily on top of a AA battery, with some minor changes to accommodate the positive nib of the battery:

http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ADP1607.pdf

(*) [Our technology is really a miniaturization technique that allows us to build the sleeve. We have some IP in some of the IC circuits that are in there, but the key is we’ve been able to miniaturize the boost circuit to a point that no one else has been able to achieve. “]

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

Are you the same YouTube troll that debunks anything that has proper engineering proof and is so much hokum, that this Batteriser will not work?
BTW the world is somewhat round. Prove me wrong Mr. Jonez.
Prove the UL testing is real.
Whichever one is easier for you.

OMG, the idiot factor is high. UL is not issuing certification, then there would be a UL logo with copyright stuff. They received test verification.
Snip ?
but I do not care about any of this crap.

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

Tiny little AD thing isn't it? Now imagine shrinking a Chinese version less the IC encapsulation to begin with, but a black dot of epoxy encompassing the whole circuit.
They did not reinvent the wheel just the spin of it. And I do mean SPIN.

Batteroo has been bragging about miniaturization of their DC to DC converter

[samgab]

...i did some sleuthing and there is this picture i found

looking for boost converters in that package and the current needed , the only two chips that come close to this are the analog devices ADP1607 and semtech SC121 . all others are too low current.

356K and 1 meg in the feedback gives 1.4 volts output voltage for this circuit .. package fits their design ...

i think we have a winner.

maybe time for a little building of this thing and trying it out ?

Yeah, Good find. I agree the ADP1607 is the closest I've seen to meeting the design sheet. Same as the sample layout on the datasheet too, with the only components being C1, C2, R1, R2, L1, and U1.

[TheAmmoniacal]

I would be surprised if they are doing a custom chip / ASIC, they sure have the expertise and contacts - but I doubt they have the money. So if they are using an off the shelf chip with the numbers scratched off - would we ever be able to tell? Would we have to Decap it and compare side-by-side with off the shelf alternatives that meet all the requirements?

[jippie]

And note that, once again, if you haven't gotten permission to put the UL mark on your product, you don't have permission to use it anywhere else or refer to them testing your product at all, including on twitter.

It is on the main batteriser.com page too.

[SeanB]

If you contract to buy 100k of a particular chip most semiconductor vendors will be all too happy to give you a batch with your own custom part number on it and your own logo, with only a tiny extra bit of marking so they can do their in house tracking. Just a change in the final stage of marking after they pass the function test, and they give you the whole batch in the standard package and box, just with the labels having your house code instead of their part number, but they will still have the standard lot coding and inventory codes. Instant custom chip, and at no extra cost as you are paying the standard price for the 100k in any case.

[5ky]

I don't see the batteriser doing more than about an amp, tops.  I'm curious how it will behave when you put it in something like an RC car with a brushed DC motor.  Or a high power LED flashlight.  (unlike the piss-ant weak-ass one they used in their promo video)  Will it give up the ghost?  I can't wait to find out! 

EDIT: I CAN'T TYPE

[Wytnucls]

At Vin 0.8V, they'd be hard-pressed to get more than 300mA out.

[samgab]

Markings? We don't NEED no stinkin' markings. We can simply test and observe it's performance characteristics and we'll know if it's just a blank or relabeled ADP1607. It's not a very complicated chip...

[samgab]

This looks very familiar, don't you think:



Of course this is no evidence of anything really. Time will tell what the mysterious "U1" really is. 

[firewalker]

Today a CO (carbon monoxide) detector on a boat started beeping for a new battery. I always thought that CO/smoke/e.t.c. detectors used a 9 volt battery. But this model had AA cells.

What would the implication of someone using the batteriser on a CO/smoke detectors... 

Potentially lethal!

Alexander.

[dexters_lab]

If you contract to buy 100k of a particular chip most semiconductor vendors will be all too happy to give you a batch with your own custom part number on it and your own logo, with only a tiny extra bit of marking so they can do their in house tracking. Just a change in the final stage of marking after they pass the function test, and they give you the whole batch in the standard package and box, just with the labels having your house code instead of their part number, but they will still have the standard lot coding and inventory codes. Instant custom chip, and at no extra cost as you are paying the standard price for the 100k in any case.

106,208 sold as of this morning

Total Sales   $266,455.00
Total Batterisers   106,208
Average Batteriser Selling Price   $2.509
Perks Claimed   5,866
Funders Total   5,942
Funders Without Perks   76
Total Raised   $318,063.00

[Wytnucls]

We can pretty much figure out all the parts being used. Anybody would hazard a guess about the BOM cost for 100,000 devices?

1 sheet metal AA battery holder (Powder coated)
1 metal cap (Anode)
1 doughnut-shaped PCB (double-sided) 4.5mm radius (AA)
1 Analog Devices ADP1607 ACPZN-R7
2 10uF 10V X5R capacitors (0402) 0.17$ each
1 TDK 2.2uH MLP2016S2R2M inductor (0805) 0.12$ each
2 resistors 100kOhm (0402) (Bourns CRT0402-CZ-1003GLF) @ 0.07$ each

[DJohn]

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

Yes, you sound like a 'conspiranoid'.  This is why I've been keeping out of this whole thing.

What it shouldn't be: a witch-hunt against Batteroo, with people leaping on every new statement, tearing it apart, looking for the tiniest apparent inconsistency (even when there isn't one) and crying victory.  It makes you look petty, like you have some agenda that you haven't declared, and (when you see supposed failings that have other explanations) like you don't know what you're talking about.

What it should be: taking testable claims, and testing them.  That's what Dave has been doing, and that's what whoever it is doing the GPS tests is doing.

"That UL logo looks photoshopped", "his background is in digital design, so he can't have the skills to design a power supply", "I don't think he has a real degree at all" are opinions.  All they do is make their holders look like people with a grudge against Batteroo, desperate to score whatever points they can, without anything solid to back them up.  It makes things turn ugly.

"Devices only use 20% of the power in a battery" is a claim that can be tested.  Dave's shown that to be false (and taught a lot of people a lot about how batteries behave in the process).  "This model of GPS lasts less than 2 hours unmodified" is easily shown to be false as well.  That's all that's necessary.

[dexters_lab]

We can pretty much figure out all the parts being used. Anybody would hazard a guess about the BOM cost for 100,000 devices?

1 sheet metal AA battery holder (Powder coated)
1 metal cap (Anode)
1 doughnut-shaped PCB (double-sided) 4.5mm radius (AA)
1 ADP1607
2 10uF 10V X5R capacitors (0402)
1 TDK 2.2uH MLP2016S2R2M inductor (0805)
2 resistors (0402)

incidentally the cheapest they are selling the batteriser for is $1.92 each for the AA and AAA size

[EEVblog]

What it shouldn't be: a witch-hunt against Batteroo, with people leaping on every new statement, tearing it apart, looking for the tiniest apparent inconsistency (even when there isn't one) and crying victory.  It makes you look petty, like you have some agenda that you haven't declared, and (when you see supposed failings that have other explanations) like you don't know what you're talking about.

What it should be: taking testable claims, and testing them.  That's what Dave has been doing, and that's what whoever it is doing the GPS tests is doing.

I agree.
There are plenty of testable claims, either via actual physical test, or via inspection and whiteboard and datasheet analysis using industry standard procedures and figures.
The GPS one is now thoroughly busted, although other people to confirm will add even more weight.
Want to verify the big thing in their latest "technical" video about power drops causing products to drop out? Simple - take a dozen random products and hook a datalogging multimeter on the battery terminals. Operate device until dead and get the plot.
See if:
a) There are any spikes at all
and
b) If there are, do they cause any problem?

Want to make that test quicker and easier?, that's easy, just discharge some batteries so only 10-20% energy remains (so it's worst case spikes due to high ESR) and capture the battery voltage on a scope. Maybe a few hours work for half a dozen products.
Claim either confirmed, or busted for half a dozen or a dozen typical products.
A few people do that and you have a lot of product data points.

[onlooker]

ADP1607 has a max rating of -0.3V between Vin,out and GND. Mixing old and new batteries in series will likely cause damage to ADP1607 due to reserse charging.

[EEVblog]

OMG, the idiot factor is high. UL is not issuing certification, then there would be a UL logo with copyright stuff. They received test verification. I have used UL like that in the past. It is real, not faked. It means they cannot put UL on the retail package, but UL tested and verified their results.
I am not going to go off and buy a Garmin G3 and test it, but I know people that use it on the golf course and they complain it gets 9 hours tops and they are not tapping the screen every 12-15 seconds. So, not sure what this result below is, but if UL tested it and verified, then I would believe UL over some guy on a blog. Make all of the videos you want to, and I know you will, I would say good luck, but I do not care about any of this crap.

Hey Davey_Jonez
For the record, who are you?
Are you in any way associated with Batteriser, Batteroo, or the "Fan Page", or do you know them?

[AmmoJammo]

I don't even know what they're trying to achieve anymore...