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

[johndoe123]

They were very cordial and invited me to do formal testing for them.
I turned them down.

paid testing?

[SL4P]

They were very cordial and invited me to do formal testing for them.
I turned them down.

paid testing?

Without being too cynical - that's quite likely - having Dave test to meet 'their' stated goals.
No luck buddy.
I was also just wondering of the 'holiday' shipment schedule may have been a subtle ploy to divert attention from the hundreds of backers that
a) haven't received their product, and the
b) publicity around the forum's test results

[BoomBrush]

They claim to have "good results" of testing from various common products including a toy train. I have asked them to release the results publicly, let's see if they do that.
I'd love to see the results of the toy train, because the results from both mine and Frank's testing on different toy trains has been nothing short of a horrible result.

Be careful with the results they give, seeing as their "tests" so far have given fake results, or at least `unreliable` ones that go in their favor.

Smoke alarms I've seen have those vinyl 9V clips that you push onto the battery, THEN you push the whole lot into a small rectangular slot. I've got another alarm that has metal contacts in the plastic and you just shove the battery into it. I doubt any sort of "batteriser" fixture would even fit, thank god.

[Scottjd]

They were very cordial and invited me to do formal testing for them.
I turned them down.

paid testing?

When you accept to test for a company "paid or not" they usually would request you sign a document before releasing any internal finding, results or test data. The catch is the document probably would have given them control on what Dave would have been allowed to release from his tests to the public or not. They were probably hoping Dave would agree and not read the fine print. Then hang that over him when he goes to release data from his test that the company doesn't agree with.
I think it was their slide of hand trying to stops Dave's testing from going public using legal mambo jumbo buried in fine print in a contract.
Well that's what they were probably hoping for, but Dave turned them down so it doesn't matter.
Scott

[Scottjd]

Smoke alarms I've seen have those vinyl 9V clips that you push onto the battery, THEN you push the whole lot into a small rectangular slot. I've got another alarm that has metal contacts in the plastic and you just shove the battery into it. I doubt any sort of "batteriser" fixture would even fit, thank god.

My concern would be the carbon monoxide detectors. The ones installed by me, and one installed by a contractor to meet code when they replaced the hot water heater all take AA batteries. They last about 2 years before the low power beep starts to chirp. These are metal flaps that could fit the battery and the batteroo in the compartment. I hope no one decided to use this product on something that could put a life at risk, but not everyone is that smart. After all people are buying these things.
Scott

[Fungus]

They claim to have "good results" of testing from various common products including a toy train.

That would be "Wayne's" train video.

(Not actually made by Wayne, obviously, and only posted on Facebook AFAIK)

I have asked them to release the results publicly, let's see if they do that.

The video is only 2 minutes long, taken from the middle of a test, and could really be showing anything at all. 

[Fungus]

UPDATE!
After all this time, Batteroo have finally contacted me directly.
Turns out they were watching the live testing show

Did they stay up all night to watch your little show? 

If they've conned somebody into giving them enough money for production then their major remaining problem is that a "batteroo is bullshit" page appears when you google them.

I'm sure the Batteroo Brothers are gaming google as hard as they can, we need to do the same.

They were very cordial and invited me to do formal testing for them.
I turned them down.

Under what conditions? NDA and with them choosing the devices and editing/cherry picking the results?

I don't think there's any way they're going to pay you to do exactly what you're about to do.

[HKJ]

When you accept to test for a company "paid or not" they usually would request you sign a document before releasing any internal finding, results or test data.

No, some of the stuff I test I get from companies, but I have never signed any documents. It is very seldom companies try to setup conditions.

[Scottjd]

When you accept to test for a company "paid or not" they usually would request you sign a document before releasing any internal finding, results or test data.

No, some of the stuff I test I get from companies, but I have never signed any documents. It is very seldom companies try to setup conditions.

I'm not saying all companies do this, but it's common for companies to provide items to YouTube content providers and try to regulate the review data. I've had to sing documents and NDA for things I have worked on and tested in the past. But it wouldn't supprise me if they tried this with Dave.
He has even mentioned in another video in the past when requesting test result data that one company was willing to share the data but not until he signed a document saying he wouldn't share the data. I don't remember what video that was, maybe the solar panel streets?

FYI, This is nothing to do with my reviews on my channel. I've never signed anything for my channel reviews. This testing is something I did on the side in the past and items I don't do reviews on.

[Scottjd]

When you accept to test for a company "paid or not" they usually would request you sign a document before releasing any internal finding, results or test data.

No, some of the stuff I test I get from companies, but I have never signed any documents. It is very seldom companies try to setup conditions.

I'm not saying all companies do this, but it's common for companies to provide items to YouTube content providers and try to regulate the review data. I've had to sing documents and NDA for things I have worked on and tested in the past. But it wouldn't supprise me if they tried this with Dave.
He has even mentioned in another video in the past when requesting test result data that one company was willing to share the data but not until he signed a document saying he wouldn't share tkhe data. I don't remember what video that was, maybe the solar panel streets?

FYI, This is nothing to do with my reviews on my channel. I've never signed anything for my channel reviews. This testing is something I did on the side in the past and items I don't do reviews on.

I should have mentioned it depends on what kind of testing you are doing for a company. Development testing, preproduction testing, or just reviewing something. For reviews it's rare they ask for you to sing a document, but not unheard of and has happened with some YouTube review channels. But it's more common on testing products that sometimes don't even make it to market, these are the ones I'm talking about most of the time.

[ez24]

....my channel.

FYI I added you to the YT list

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/dd/msg1093983/#msg1093983

[FrankBuss]

They claim to have "good results" of testing from various common products including a toy train. I have asked them to release the results publicly, let's see if they do that.
I'd love to see the results of the toy train, because the results from both mine and Frank's testing on different toy trains has been nothing short of a horrible result.

Wayne didn't know the exact model of the train when I asked him on Facebook, but they might have used a train with AA batteries, and the track was different. Apparently they measured and recorded lap count and lap times with an expensive looking photoelectric barrier, but I think the fact that they didn't release the full data or a diagram of it so far means that it wouldn't look too good for them. And they used two different trains in their test side by side. I don't want to accuse them that they added a resistor or something in the train without the sleeve, but the trains could be just different. Not a good test setup.

Maybe next they'll say, our tests were done with old pre-production "Batteriser" sleeves instead of the good new "Batteroo" ones.

[Barny]

But that would mean, that they admit that they did send pre production samples to the customers instead "good new ones".

[Luminax]

UPDATE!
After all this time, Batteroo have finally contacted me directly.
Turns out they were watching the live testing show were I mentioned they have never contacted me, so they did, Ali BTW (not Bob).
They were very cordial and invited me to do formal testing for them.
I turned them down.
But ironically I'm already doing that for them already 

They claim to have "good results" of testing from various common products including a toy train. I have asked them to release the results publicly, let's see if they do that.
I'd love to see the results of the toy train, because the results from both mine and Frank's testing on different toy trains has been nothing short of a horrible result.

So yeah, that just happened 

If anyone remember from all the past soap opera episodes... this "Ali" person seems to be the PR face and could have been - no proof so far has surfaced but we can only wonder - the very same person on the 'fan page' youtube channel, or have some kind of inkling to that person, or was the employer of said person. Meanwhile, Boob and Pranky disappeared after their "hard work and gruelling task" of releasing a snail video 

In fact... I don't think we've seen even the slightest shadow of Pranky have we? aside from the mention some tens or pages previously that he has jumped ship, or have had a 'dual' partnership somewhere else (I do remember it's the same bullshit smelling company as batteroo is)

Regardless, I have tons of exciting new content waiting for me when I get home yippeeeee 

[Barny]

I think its time that dave is getting an exclusive popcorn sponsor   

[rollatorwieltje]

Smoke alarms I've seen have those vinyl 9V clips that you push onto the battery, THEN you push the whole lot into a small rectangular slot. I've got another alarm that has metal contacts in the plastic and you just shove the battery into it. I doubt any sort of "batteriser" fixture would even fit, thank god.

Mine have plenty of space for a Batteriser, the battery is only held in by 2 plastic fingers. Plenty of space to put something on top.

[PeterL]

They claim to have "good results" of testing from various common products including a toy train. I have asked them to release the results publicly, let's see if they do that.
I'd love to see the results of the toy train, because the results from both mine and Frank's testing on different toy trains has been nothing short of a horrible result.

Wayne didn't know the exact model of the train when I asked him on Facebook, but they might have used a train with AA batteries, and the track was different. Apparently they measured and recorded lap count and lap times with an expensive looking photoelectric barrier, but I think the fact that they didn't release the full data or a diagram of it so far means that it wouldn't look too good for them. And they used two different trains in their test side by side. I don't want to accuse them that they added a resistor or something in the train without the sleeve, but the trains could be just different. Not a good test setup.

Maybe next they'll say, our tests were done with old pre-production "Batteriser" sleeves instead of the good new "Batteroo" ones.

The test that Wayne showed was a total fail for the batteriser if you ask me. The train ran for 4h55 with the batteriser, and 7h55 without. That's -37%. The batteriser was sold as a product to save on batteries, and in this case you are gonna need more. So instead of disrupting the battery industry, Big battery will now say "Thank you oh so very much!"

As for the speed. Wayne argues that after 5 hours the train without batteriser might be unacceptable slow (23.6 without vs 32.5 with). And I disagree. This is just a toy for a 4yo. These kids are not gonna compare the train to another one that does have a fresh battery, or measure lap times, or count laps. And after 5 hours (which are gonna spread out over days or weeks in reality) the kid will probably not know anymore how fast the train was going with a fresh battery.

And yes are products on which it is desirable to maintain a certain speed, and the batteriser could be beneficial even with a shortened life. But than show those products, because those product were probably designed with other goals than toy trains.

[samgab]

UPDATE!
After all this time, Batteroo have finally contacted me directly.
Turns out they were watching the live testing show were I mentioned they have never contacted me, so they did, Ali BTW (not Bob).
They were very cordial and invited me to do formal testing for them.
I turned them down.
But ironically I'm already doing that for them already 

They claim to have "good results" of testing from various common products including a toy train. I have asked them to release the results publicly, let's see if they do that.
I'd love to see the results of the toy train, because the results from both mine and Frank's testing on different toy trains has been nothing short of a horrible result.

So yeah, that just happened 

If anyone remember from all the past soap opera episodes... this "Ali" person seems to be the PR face and could have been - no proof so far has surfaced but we can only wonder - the very same person on the 'fan page' youtube channel, or have some kind of inkling to that person, or was the employer of said person. Meanwhile, Boob and Pranky disappeared after their "hard work and gruelling task" of releasing a snail video 

In fact... I don't think we've seen even the slightest shadow of Pranky have we? aside from the mention some tens or pages previously that he has jumped ship, or have had a 'dual' partnership somewhere else (I do remember it's the same bullshit smelling company as batteroo is)

Regardless, I have tons of exciting new content waiting for me when I get home yippeeeee 

Hmm, yes, you're right, Ali Roohparvar was the nephew of one of them IIRC. https://www.linkedin.com/in/5starwatchesonline

Here's a blast from the past:

-Source: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg818585/#msg818585

[digsys]

OMG ! You can't make stuff like this up? Speechless .. I'm guessing these comments were deleted? :-)

[AmmoJammo]

Why are Batteroo asking Dave to do testing now?

You're meant to do that in the prototyping stages, not after production and shipping....

[GoneTomorrow]

Why are Batteroo asking Dave to do testing now?

You're meant to do that in the prototyping stages, not after production and shipping....

By asking Dave to do formal testing, they likely were hoping for some kind of NDA agreement against releasing results without them being vetted by Batteroo themselves. They know full well that Dave's unbiased results are going to be embarrassing.


On a side note, only 300 odd more posts until this is the most replied thread on this forum 

[samgab]

OMG ! You can't make stuff like this up? Speechless .. I'm guessing these comments were deleted? :-)

Yeah definitely, they were gone a short time later. But in the age of the internet, nothing is really gone... There was more to this saga, but not worth rehashing it all.
Strange that after all this time a couple of years, it just happens that only 1 day after Dave finally receives his first sleeves, he is contacted for the first time by Batteroo... Interesting timing.

[EEVblog]

It's just occurred to me that Batteriser have now finally been as honest and realistic as they have ever been in their marketing.
They have moved from the whole 800% and x8 BS to the 80% unused (x5) BS, to now the "performance or extra time" tradeoff marketing on active vs passive loads which is basically true at it's face value.

Passive loads like the toy train should perform better for a shorter period, and I've demoed that in my train video. And of course it's one of the reasons why DC-DC converters are built into products like almost all torches now. But in the example of the train it's not going to be a huge difference, but still, it's there. You trade off performance for time.

Active loads is were the BS still stinks though, as they are still pushing the line that devices have high cut off voltages and that 80% of energy remains unused etc, and that's completely busted, but still would be technically true in a few niche products they have still yet to demo after several years at this.

It's interesting to see how their claims and marketing have changed over all this time, and seems a classic case of them now finally realising the reality of how useless this product is practice. Yet they are so far down the rabbit hole that they still can't admit it, but their marketing has had to morph to the reality over time.

[SeanB]

Just had a though, what if somebody uses these on a rechargeable cell, and put it into the charger with the Batteroo still connected, and it is one of those lovely low cost Big Clive style chargers, which use a capacitive dropper to charge the cells. Wonder what will die first, the chip or the capacitors, and just how much current can a NimH cell provide into a shorted stainless steel clip.

Was also looking at places that would fit a Batteroo, and aside from a battery charger, that takes both AA and AAA that uses a spring clip, nothing will fit them, some even are fussy about taking certain cells, as the positive pip is too short. And yes, I do have a CO detector ( $5 from China delivered, not seen them locally at all, so I ordered 2, must look inside the one) that uses 3 AAA cells ,and it came with OHL Fong Kong blanded ones, which seem to work, though I bet they will be making a loud beep sometime, and I will replace with Energiser ones.

[JonF]

Somewhat surprised that "Big battery" haven't offered to pay Dave to stop discrediting this so they can cash in...

Great work BTW,  this needs to be stopped before it finds its way into safety devices.