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.
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.
But then, why the UL logo?
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.
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.
Batteroo has been bragging about miniaturization of their DC to DC converter
...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 ?
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.
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.
May I say conspiranoid and even more crazy than usual if I think about the following?
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)
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.
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.