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

[rollatorwieltje]

It's literally mentioned in the video... Vivitar S126

http://www.argos.co.uk/product/4187156

Wow, a 25 gbp digital camera.

[rich]

I expect this is the same kind of issues as the goofy GPS test but this time about the flash instead of the backlight.

Before leaping to conspiracy theories I'd like proof. Subjectively though, the backlight looks significantly brighter on the left camera, but it could just be the viewing angle. Only one way to find out... 

[Hensingler]

It's literally mentioned in the video... Vivitar S126

http://www.argos.co.uk/product/4187156

Wow, a 25 gbp digital camera.

$25 in the states and a youtube reviewer said he wouldn't pay $5 for it, so I guess he wouldn't spend $7.50 on batteriseroo sleeves to make it work better either.

Anyhow congrats to Batteriseroo on finding a product so crappy that batteriseroos improve it. Or maybe it is more bullshit like the golf GPS thing.

Later edit: Review from Argos
avoid

    the camera flattened 12 batteries . Argos customer service advised that these cameras do not work well with "normal batteries" not even rechargeable or high power ones the screen is small blurry and reminiscent of the 1980's the general build is like something you might find in a fast food meal box . it seems very light and almost fragile, screw heads are clearly visible battery cover badly fitting took it straight back to exchange for a grown up camera.

[drussell]

LOL...  Oops, I obviously missed hearing that bit...

Sounds like she says "S126" not F...

I can't seem to find a manual online yet but since the website has the following incredibly detailed specifications for "Technical Details":

Megapixels     16.1
Digital Zoom  4x

I don't really expect the manual to say a heck of a lot about anything...   

At first I thought it might have different modes for battery types or be intelligent enough to be warning about flash use on low battery or something, but now that I've actually seen what it is, I don't expect much of anything...  LOL...

<sarcasm> Looks like a top-notch, high quality camera! </sarcasm>    

Anyone have access one of these for characterization?

Before leaping to conspiracy theories I'd like proof. Subjectively though, the backlight looks significantly brighter on the left camera, but it could just be the viewing angle. Only one way to find out... 

Indeed....  It is entirely possible that this is one of those dirt cheap, poorly designed products that actually fill the niche where the Batteriser actually does something.

Now perhaps someone has a specific potential target product to try to win my $10 beer fund prize from the testing thread!    Perhaps it will not be as much of a long and arduous journey as I suspected after all since Batteroo has pointed us to another potential product.  (Though, the GPS didn't work out too well for them, so who knows...)

I can't wait for more info on this one!   

[drussell]

Since they seem to have comment moderation on, what do suppose the chances are of them accidentally approving my comment and it showing up in the video comments:



 

[StillTrying]

http://vivitar-experience-image-manager.com/manuals/en_US/ViviCam_F126_Camera_Manual.pdf
http://vivitar-experience-image-manager.com/manuals/en_US/ViviCam_F126v2_Camera_Manual.pdf

In the vid Sheila says S126, still can't find that ones manual.

[drussell]

Yes, I saw manuals for the F126...

Does anyone know what the difference between the S126 and the F126 is?

The S126 is supposedly 16.1 MP and the F126 manual says 14 MP...

They may be very similar but I'm guessing they are not the same.

[dr_frost_dk]

Such a dumb video....

"Most devices use only a fraction of the energy in their battery's"
in a few weeks users here will confirm that most devices uses most to all energy in the battery

And how can you call i a "test" when all you are doing is showing how a boost converter works.

[Towger]

The camera without the Batteriser "slave"  is still taking photos, but the flash is not charging in the 10 seconds between photos.  I wonder how many photos they would both take if you left them both running.

[Blocco]

Based on users' reviews these cameras appear to have particularly poor power management.e.g...

AVOID

Purchased 2 of these at the same time as cheap and cheerful for our 2children to venture into the digital camera world on there own. First the battery compartment buckled on 1 as we closed lid with the battery's in. We got a replacement but that with the other one battery door kept popping open so we had to use cello tape to keep closed. Used cheap batteries and only took three pictures before flat so used Duracell and got 10 pictures on one 12 on the other before batteries were flat again.

It's seems like a very obscure choice of product for the test.... someone's been doing their homework.

[AmmoJammo]

It's probably the only camera they could find that the Batteroo actually fitted in.

I also imagine, that the fixed focus, and small flash don't draw as much current as those on a "proper" digital camera would - I have my doubts the batteroo could even supply enough current for most digital cameras.

[samgab]

The camera without the Batteriser "slave"  is still taking photos, but the flash is not charging in the 10 seconds between photos.  I wonder how many photos they would both take if you left them both running.

It's a cherry picked product with very carefully selected test parameters, not a real world test scenario. But all the same, I'd like to repeat the same test with the same product under the same test conditions using a set of Eneloop Pros. I may do so.

[rich]

The camera without the Batteriser "slave"  is still taking photos, but the flash is not charging in the 10 seconds between photos.  I wonder how many photos they would both take if you left them both running.

Well we know the non-batteroo camera gave up entirely after about 420 (you can see it in the video)

[drussell]

Based on users' reviews these cameras appear to have particularly poor power management.e.g...
...
It's seems like a very obscure choice of product for the test.... someone's been doing their homework.

Indeed!  I wonder how hard they had to search to find device(s) that actually show any benefit from these sleeves...  The best they could seemingly come up with before was the GPS, which they figured out a way to game the "test" on...  Products that they can tout as suitable must be very few and far between.

Used cheap batteries and only took three pictures before flat so used Duracell and got 10 pictures on one 12 on the other before batteries were flat again.

I wonder if there are manufacturing defects that cause some specimens of these cameras to have totally defective power supplies.  10-12 pictures means something is seriously wrong, even with the cheapest of the cheap crap.

I wonder if the test in the video were repeated with the Batteroo Sleeves in the other camera, would the results still be the same?  Did they hand-pick these two cameras?

That is why this whole saga has been so thoroughly entertaining...  Nobody is quite sure whether these PHD engineer "GENIUSES" are really as clueless as they appear or if it is all an elaborate, intentional ploy to slurp money out of unsuspecting masses with their vague, evasive marketing wankery.

Why did they never publish any data if they are so SMRT and their product is so great?  This whole thing makes no sense, which is why we've all been watching!

With the product choice in the latest video, it is certainly looking more and more like it is 100% willful, sleazy misdirection and misinformation.  They may have been a tad clueless at the start but they have certainly doubled down (and tripled, quadrupled..) on their level of BS.  They did not choose this model of camera for this test at random.   

Somehow, I don't think my second comment is ever going to go public either:

[Delta]

Has Dave got three AAA Batteryiseroos?  I'd happily pay 25 quid for one of these cameras so he could repeat the test.

[ez24]

It's literally mentioned in the video... Vivitar S126

http://www.argos.co.uk/product/4187156

Wow, a 25 gbp digital camera.

My guess they used this camera because the sleeves fit.  I have Nikon and Canon cameras that use 2-AAs and I do not think the sleeves would fit any of them.  It probably took them 2 years to find a camera that takes the sleeves.

The only way we will know is when someone does this test and it is fortunate the camera is cheap.

Another camera test could be a Canon using CHDK that shows battery percentage.  So a gauge test could be done at the same tiime (if the sleeve fits) .  These cameras go for about 30-40 on ebay.

[FrankBuss]

Such a dumb video....

"Most devices use only a fraction of the energy in their battery's"
in a few weeks users here will confirm that most devices uses most to all energy in the battery

And how can you call i a "test" when all you are doing is showing how a boost converter works.

I posted a comment to the video, let's see how long it survives Additional note: the quiescent current of the Batteroo sleeve is about 14 uA. With normal use, e.g. 8 hours per day, the battery in an Apple keyboard might last a month without the Batteroo sleeve (reported by some users on Amazon). This means the quiescent current of the Batteroo sleeve alone will reduce the battery life time significantly.

[samgab]

Has Dave got three AAA Batteryiseroos?  I'd happily pay £25 quid for one of these cameras so he could repeat the test.

IIRC, he received three AAA types in total in the batch from a user, but one of them fell apart the first time he tried to use it (soldered tabs fell off) so he has only two AAA left. The other one could certainly still be used with a bit of metal soldered on to make contact, but I think he was going to attach wires to it for more thorough bench testing.

I suspect the carefully selected 10sec recycle time in the test was chosen because 10 seconds doesn't give the Alkaline chemistry time to recover between flash charge bursts of current draw. In real life, where you'd use the flash every now and then it would be different. What if the test was set up to do 10 photos with no flash, 1 min pause, 1 photo with flash, 1 min pause, 10 photos with flash, etc... I think the result would be the opposite. That's why I say all of  the test conditions were carefully selected to give a desired result. By someone who knows this very well, about Alkaline chemistry etc.

Edit: I remembered the phrase I was trying to think of when I was typing the above: "Deliberately misleading" was it.

Edit2: Anyone else hate the voice they used for the voice-over in that camera test ad? She sounds so smug and slimy. Yuck.

[drussell]

The camera without the Batteriser "slave"  is still taking photos, but the flash is not charging in the 10 seconds between photos.  I wonder how many photos they would both take if you left them both running.

Well we know the non-batteroo camera gave up entirely after about 420 (you can see it in the video)

Given their history with the GPS "test", it is very possible that their test parameters were carefully managed to manipulate the results to benefit their results.  For example, as suggested above, if the flash starts to take more than the 10 second interval they are using to recharge, what is the behavior?  How long does it take to write to the card?  Would the results be the same at a 15 or 20 second interval?  Was the SD card on each camera the exactly same type?  Were they both empty?

The manual for the F126 version does say:

- Some features, such as Flash, will not work if the battery power level is low.

- When the battery power is low the battery icon turns red and the
camera will automatically turn off a few seconds later.

Like the GPS, is there any kind of warning on the screen at any time?  Do you have to press an [OK] button to continue taking photos?

Of course, it is also very possible that the power supply design in this camera sucks so badly that it actually does make an improvement even when there are not any manufacturing defects in the particular specimen and it is operating as well as the design can possibly permit.

I can't wait for someone a tad more impartial than Batteroo Inc. to get their hands on one of these cameras for some testing! 

[Godzil]

Has Dave got three AAA Batteryiseroos?  I'd happily pay £25 quid for one of these cameras so he could repeat the test.

IIRC, he received three AAA types in total in the batch from a user, but one of them fell apart the first time he tried to use it (soldered tabs fell off) so he has only two AAA left. The other one could certainly still be used with a bit of metal soldered on to make contact, but I think he was going to attach wires to it for more thorough bench testing.

I suspect the carefully selected 10sec recycle time in the test was chosen because 10 seconds doesn't give the Alkaline chemistry time to recover between flash charge bursts of current draw. In real life, where you'd use the flash every now and then it would be different. What if the test was set up to do 10 photos with no flash, 1 min pause, 1 photo with flash, 1 min pause, 10 photos with flash, etc... I think the result would be the opposite. That's why I say all of  the test conditions were carefully selected to give a desired result. By someone who knows this very well, about Alkaline chemistry etc.

Edit: I remembered the phrase I was trying to think of when I was typing the above: "Deliberately misleading" was it.

Edit2: Anyone else hate the voice they used for the voice-over in that camera test ad? She sounds so smug and slimy. Yuck.

That's always sadly true, if you really want to make a test to give the answer you want, it's never really difficult to make it, that's why Frank and Dave test are better, they are done by done by two independent people and giving the whole test (and use the devices in a more "normal" way)

By the way Dave, you really should try a third battery on the train, first time with the battero, wait the same time as for the battery two, then use it again in the train without the sleeve, and count the number of turn/time the train will work in that case

[timb]

After seeing some reviews of the camera they used for the test, it suddenly all makes sense! Clearly this is Bob's personal camera, which explains why he couldn't take a photo of any of the prototypes or the production in China! XD

[edavid]

Additional note: the quiescent current of the Batteroo sleeve is about 14 uA. With normal use, e.g. 8 hours per day, the battery in an Apple keyboard might last a month without the Batteroo sleeve (reported by some users on Amazon). This means the quiescent current of the Batteroo sleeve alone will reduce the battery life time significantly.

That does not compute.  A 2000mAh AA cell can supply 14uA for 16 years.  I think the sleep current of the keyboard is at least 100uA, based on the 2 year-ish battery life I get on a seldom used keyboard.

[SeanB]

Has Dave got three AAA Batteryiseroos?  I'd happily pay 25 quid for one of these cameras so he could repeat the test.

He had 4, one already broken during first attempted insertion, and one of the others is hungry for more of his blood.  So send him 2 of these cameras, DHL express using his account. That way he has 2 samples, one to run with Batterpoo, one without, using batteries from the same batch, next to each other. Then swap the cameras and run again, so you have no unit variance.

After completion of the test one can be torn down to show how crappy it is, though I have already a guess, as I have one older Vivitar camera, that also ate batteries as well, but that at least used AA cells. IIRC it was a whole 2MP, and could do video as well, QVGA and audio in some horrid WMP codec abomination.

If you need a bit of cash I could send 5 quid to help, and I am sure we could crowdfund the other 45 quid from the members here.

[amyk]

That camera also sounds like one where the Kentli lion+buck batteries mentioned a page or two back would work well in (and they would still beat an alkaline+batteriser):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg1103603/#msg1103603

Edit2: Anyone else hate the voice they used for the voice-over in that camera test ad? She sounds so smug and slimy. Yuck.

Me too, "slimy" is a good way of putting it... as in lubricated with snake oil. But that's beside the point, it would be just as deceptive with a less yucky voice.

[ez24]

Edit2: Anyone else hate the voice they used for the voice-over in that camera test ad? She sounds so smug and slimy. Yuck.

I am in love with her and I want to buy some Batteroos to prove it