Author Topic: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)  (Read 2506192 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jay_Diddy_B

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2489
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4250 on: January 23, 2016, 10:55:46 pm »
Hi group,

Why wait for your Batteriser? Why not build your own?

Here are some pictures of mine:

Bare Naked Board



The board was made from 0.062 (1.6mm) FR4. I didn't want change my machine to use 0.032" (0.8mm).

Assembled Board




The Inductor is 1mm tall, the output capacitors are 0805, they could be 0603, I didn't have any.




Board on AA cell

Here is a photo of the board sitting an AA cell. Normally the board will be sitting the other way up.



Positive Output Terminal

This is where the positive output terminal attaches to.




Board Measurements

Here is a photograph of the board being measured by my Mitutoyo Calipers.




Challenge to Batteroo.

I have shown you mine, now it is time to show me yours.

(I was quite amazed that I could build this at home.) :D

Edit -  a couple more pictures





Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B





« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 11:29:23 pm by Jay_Diddy_B »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11874
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4251 on: January 23, 2016, 11:05:49 pm »
Hi group,

Why wait for your Batteriser? Why not build your own?

Here are some pictures of mine:

I have shown you mine, now it is time to show me yours.

I'd show you mine but I don't want to end up in a dumpster in Milpitas.

 

Offline SL4P

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2155
  • Country: au
  • There's more value if you figure it out yourself!
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4252 on: January 23, 2016, 11:16:47 pm »
Hi group,
Why wait for your Batteriser? Why not build your own?
:::
Nice presentation.
And of course as others have said - if you put an extra $1.3M into it, there could have been some dimensional and performance improvements.

Appreciate your willingness to share.  (Hint: Buttriser)
Don't ask a question if you aren't willing to listen to the answer.
 

Offline Jay_Diddy_B

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2489
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4253 on: January 23, 2016, 11:31:32 pm »

I'd show you mine but I don't want to end up in a dumpster in Milpitas.


I have been to Milpitas. There are worse places to end up in a dumpster  :-DD

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1779
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4254 on: January 24, 2016, 12:26:12 am »
I think it's safe to say the Batteriser Bros haven't spent much on their legal defense. They're probably only doing it to show their investors they did something.

This whole process is an opposition to a trade mark application made by Batteroo which has not yet been granted. The process and resolution is handled by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the US Patent and Trademark Office. Nobody is suing anybody. Costs don't get awarded even if the trademark is refused registration.

Rich is correct.  Batteroo isn't being sued.  Energizer is simply opposing Batteroo's application for the Batteriser trademark.

Batteroo doesn't even have the trademark yet.  Large companies like Energizer Holdings (parent company of the Eveready and Energizer battery brands as well as things like Schick, Wilkinson Sword and Playtex, among others) have whole departments of people dedicated to protecting their trademarks by doing things like watching the trademark gazette looking for potentially confusing marks before they are even through the examination process with the trademark office.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32478
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4255 on: January 24, 2016, 02:51:59 am »
Could very likely be adjudicated to pay Energiser's costs - maybe $500K or more... ! 

Seem that might be possible if they can prove it was intentional:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/23/trademark-protection-is-litigation-worth-the-cost/id=40711/

Quote
The case law gives some guidance as to expectability of outcome in a winning trademark case, but each Court will look at the facts, the motivation behind the infringement (was it inadvertent or intentional), the value to the plaintiff of the mark and lost profits – if any.  In intentional infringement, the Court may even order the infringer to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.

In my view it was pretty obvious that Batteroo were deliberately playing on the Energizer name. It's likely they even deliberately used the non-american S instead of Z in an attempt to avoid this very suit.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32478
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4256 on: January 24, 2016, 02:55:07 am »
Batteroo doesn't even have the trademark yet.  Large companies like Energizer Holdings (parent company of the Eveready and Energizer battery brands as well as things like Schick, Wilkinson Sword and Playtex, among others) have whole departments of people dedicated to protecting their trademarks by doing things like watching the trademark gazette looking for potentially confusing marks before they are even through the examination process with the trademark office.

In this case it seems it went a bit beyond the Trademark defense department. Wording in the Energizer suit implies that engineering got involved and they don't think the product even has technical merit (i.e. fraudulent/exaggerated claims) , and hence could potentially hurt Energizer reputation technically as well.
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1779
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4257 on: January 24, 2016, 05:57:22 am »
In this case it seems it went a bit beyond the Trademark defense department. Wording in the Energizer suit implies that engineering got involved and they don't think the product even has technical merit (i.e. fraudulent/exaggerated claims) , and hence could potentially hurt Energizer reputation technically as well.

If you're referring to the statements like:

Quote
14. Upon information and belief, the product identified by Applied-For Marks, however, does not actually raise or increase the stored energy of the battery. Instead, as indicated in Applicant’s recitation of goods, the identified product merely provides access to existing stored energy found within the battery, i.e., “sleeve to be used with disposable batteries to extract stored energy and extend battery life.” (Emphasis added).

15. This deception is material because it relates to a character, quality or function of the identified product and because prospective purchasers are likely to believe that the deception actually describes the product.

... these are part of Energizer's opposition to the proposed Batteriser trademark made by Batteroo.  This is with the US Patent and Trademark Office, it is not a regular lawsuit (unless I've missed some reference to an some other case than the trademark opposition), it is a matter for the USPTO's Trademark Trial & Appeal Board.  Energizer is telling the USPTO that they should not grant the proposed trademark to Batteroo because the mark they have applied for is confusingly similar to many of Energizer's marks, that Batteroo have been engaged in publically making questionable to fraudulent marketing claims about the capabilities of their products, etc. etc.

I'm not a IP lawyer but my father did trademark searches for lawfirms for many years and I was around while working on projects preparing for lawsuits, etc. so I do have some insight into the industry.  The only time I've ever been to Washington, DC, I was accompanying my father to a trademarks convention held by the USPTO in '94.  (I did all the IT and management work for the servers, systems and software in our offices where we had local copies of the entire US and Canadian trademark databases including design marks in graphical form that we used for searching and I did things like the updates which were sent on CD-ROM sets every couple of weeks which had to be merged into the local database, etc...  This is late '80s through to the mid '90s, before they made that stuff available on the internet and it required some fairly significant computing hardware, especially large HDDs and banks of CD-ROM drives for the time period... I still have one of the very first 1X speed Philips and some of the 1X TEAC SCSI CD-ROM drives we used for loading the updates.  Believe me, even the upgrade to a stack of six Panasonic model 562 2X CD-ROM drives made those updates a lot quicker!  300K/sec was twice as fast!  Wheee!! :))

We did searches for people preparing to register a mark to try to be sure they would not have things that were likely to cause opposition or at least know what might be potentially confusing, etc. as well as monitoring for holders of existing marks and pulling information for markholders preparing to oppose pending applications or for those preparing to defend their marks.

It was actually really quite interesting stuff to be involved with but the search services we provided essentially became obsolete once the internet became popular and that information was made available online by the various trademark offices.  (Though, our search software was better at doing the actual searching, especially for design marks.)  That part of the business quickly dried up and by the later '90s we weren't doing anything with trademarks anymore.

If there are any actual trademark lawyers in the crowd, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 06:09:05 am by drussell »
 

Offline rich

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 249
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4258 on: January 24, 2016, 06:53:15 am »
Point 14 is about the semantics and entomology of "Batteriser" and "Batterise" no deep engineering or discrediting of battery life here. If the board decide that it is 'deceptive' then it won't be registered.

Exhibit B shows Bateroo describe the 'riser' to mean the voltage rises to 1.5 volts. In the opposition, Energizer deliberately fail to quote that part.

Of course, as Dave suggested many, many posts ago, if they decide to ship they may have to defend themselves against Energiser going after them for infringement and damages. But we are not there yet  :popcorn:
 

Offline SL4P

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2155
  • Country: au
  • There's more value if you figure it out yourself!
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4259 on: January 24, 2016, 06:56:46 am »
Cute...
Entomology (from Greek ???????, entomon "insect"; and -?????, -logia) is the scientific study of insects, a branch of zoology.

We know what you meant, but a nice slip up!  (Etymology)
Don't ask a question if you aren't willing to listen to the answer.
 

Offline rich

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 249
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4260 on: January 24, 2016, 07:59:29 am »
what's worse is I looked it up to make sure I had the correct spelling and still got it wrong  :palm: Maybe I've been watching too many CSI repeats  :)
 

Offline Galenbo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1481
  • Country: be
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4261 on: January 24, 2016, 01:29:15 pm »
Why wait for your Batteriser? Why not build your own?

Here are some pictures of mine:

The contrast couldn't be bigger.

You post cheap pictures with the intention of showing the maximum of your development.
They run an expensive media campaign with the intention to show nothing.

Good work.
If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat.
 

Offline Jay_Diddy_B

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2489
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4262 on: January 24, 2016, 04:31:19 pm »
Hi group,

This is my 1000th. post to EEVBlog forum:



I have continued my quest to build a DIY 'Batteriser'. I have made some new boards out 0.032" (0.8mm) material. It checking these I found a few more challenges for the Batteroo people.

Revised Artwork

I have revised the artwork. I have removed the hole and made a large copper area for the positive terminal of the cell to connect to the board.



I have added an area on the output side of the board to add a Keystone 5015 testpoint. More on this later.






Spring Type Battery Holders

Before soldering the parts to the board, I tried the board in a few different battery holders to test the fit. The first was a Fluke 337 Clamp meter. The battery contacts in this meter are the spring kind:





Notice how the positive terminal is recessed. This retains the spring and provides reverse battery protection.


I was able to install my booster board. There is enough room in the spring to get the board in.





Note that there is a gap between the board, marked with the red arrow, and the spring contact. This is why the test point is needed.




You can see that it is a tight fit:



Fluke 189 DMM

The Fluke 189 meter uses a different kind of battery holder made from thin sheet material.



Here is a picture with a cell installed:



There is not enough in this type of battery holder to install the booster.



Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B




« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 04:48:57 pm by Jay_Diddy_B »
 

Offline rrinker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2046
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4263 on: January 24, 2016, 05:16:15 pm »
 This is amazing. A few days of messing around and you have far more to show for it than these self-proclaimed incredibly brilliant PhDs. Don't forget - they claimed their superiority and said Dave didn't do his analysis correctly because he's NOT a PhD like they are. Far more empirical testing with the fitment and all then those 'geniuses' have ever shown. Regardless of the actual effectiveness of the device, you have at least shown how it may or may not work in various types of devices, and that without the benefit of a million or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of R&D money.

 

Offline Wytnucls

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2991
  • Country: be
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4264 on: January 24, 2016, 05:37:28 pm »
The layout of the PCB is fairly well known. The protruding top contact should work, if the battery compartment can accommodate the extra battery length.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 05:40:25 pm by Wytnucls »
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5731
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4265 on: January 24, 2016, 05:48:03 pm »
This is amazing. A few days of messing around and you have far more to show for it than these self-proclaimed incredibly brilliant PhDs. Don't forget - they claimed their superiority and said Dave didn't do his analysis correctly because he's NOT a PhD like they are. Far more empirical testing with the fitment and all then those 'geniuses' have ever shown. Regardless of the actual effectiveness of the device, you have at least shown how it may or may not work in various types of devices, and that without the benefit of a million or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of R&D money.

And Batteroo claim several years of R&D for showing a prototype and not being able to deliver a product while Jay_Diddy_B has built a prototype in a few days. It doesn't take a PhD to determine what the whole business is about. Let's see how long Batteroo are able to keep playing their game. :popcorn:
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1779
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4266 on: January 24, 2016, 05:53:07 pm »
The layout of the PCB is fairly well known. The protruding top contact should work, if the battery compartment can accommodate the extra battery length.

That's what Jay_Diddy_B was pointing out.  Adding the top contact is not the issue, physically fitting the cell-PCB combination in the slot meant to accommodate just the cell is.

Using those two Fluke meters as an example, the one with the spring type contacts did have just enough room to squeeze it in there but on the one with the folded-over metal contacts, there is not enough room to install the AA cell with PCB on top.  If you look closely at the second meter photo, you'll see that the cell is still angled upwards at the negative end, he can't fit the cell in there with the additonal cell length due to the PCB.  The plastic part of the battery compartment simply isn't long enough for it to fit without modifying the meter.  (Or, at least I think that's the case...  Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay_Diddy_B.)

This is my 1000th. post to EEVBlog forum:

Congrats!  :) 

I noticed last night you were at 999,  I just didn't know that your 1000th would be such a good one!  :)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 06:05:47 pm by drussell »
 

Offline Wytnucls

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2991
  • Country: be
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4267 on: January 24, 2016, 06:18:25 pm »
Their PCB appears to be much thinner, but even then of course, the jig won't work in devices with tight compartment tolerances.
 

Offline Wytnucls

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2991
  • Country: be
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4268 on: January 24, 2016, 06:31:03 pm »
5 months ago
Bob Roohparvar
Campaigner

@KevinWesley64
we have found that it does fit in most devices. There are certain very very tight compartments that will be the exception. We worked hard to make the best design to avoid that problem. If you buy the Batteriser and later find that it wont fit in any of the devices you intend to use it for, then we can accommodate a refund.
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1779
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4269 on: January 24, 2016, 06:39:31 pm »
Their PCB appears to be much thinner, but even then of course, the jig won't work in devices with tight compartment tolerancs.

Agreed.

The problem with that battery compartment is not so much the thickness of the PCB (that is about 1/3 of the extra length with Jay_Diddy_B's example) but the fact that the height of the + button contact which usually goes up into the slot to the + terminal in the holder is added to the regular length of the cell.  This can't be fully reduced to zero due to the components on the PCB surrounding the button terminal.

There is only so much space available in there on holders designed to only accommodate the actual standard length of an AA cell where the cell basically touches plastic at both ends with just enough clearance to pop the cell in.  There are many products with holders like that where it is simply not going to work, no matter how thin you make the PCB material or if you countersink the components into the PCB itself.  You're still adding at least the thickness of your tallest component to the "shoulder" area around the button no matter how you do it.

we have found that it does fit in most devices. There are certain very very tight compartments that will be the exception. We worked hard to make the best design to avoid that problem. If you buy the Batteriser and later find that it wont fit in any of the devices you intend to use it for, then we can accommodate a refund.

I'm of the opinion that there are many more devices where it is not going to fit than Bob is implying  :)

Also, that is just length...  There are, of course, also many devices with round compartments with very little clearance for even the thinnest, roundest sleeve surounding the cell.  At least they publically said you should be able to get a refund when it doesn't work in your product.  That could get interesting!  :)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 06:45:50 pm by drussell »
 

Offline Jay_Diddy_B

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2489
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4270 on: January 24, 2016, 06:57:31 pm »
The layout of the PCB is fairly well known. The protruding top contact should work, if the battery compartment can accommodate the extra battery length.

The layout of my board is very similar to the computer generated image.

This is a photo of my new layout with the parts attached:



There is a large section in the middle to make contact with the positive battery terminal. I have marked the connections in this photograph:



My board is 0.032". I am milling the traces. If the board too thin the component will break off the board.

To give some idea of the scale.

The inductor is 3mm x 3mm  2.2uH at 1.4A
The integrated circuit is 2 x 3 mm DFN
There are three 0603 capacitors

The voltage divider is two 0402 resistors and one 0402 capacitor. If is true that Batteroo is using a custom chip the divider could be inside the chip.

I used the LTC3539.

These boards that I have made are functional.

we have found that it does fit in most devices. There are certain very very tight compartments that will be the exception. We worked hard to make the best design to avoid that problem. If you buy the Batteriser and later find that it wont fit in any of the devices you intend to use it for, then we can accommodate a refund.

I'm of the opinion that there are many more devices where it is not going to fit than Bob is implying  :)

Also, that is just length...  There are, of course, also many devices with round compartments with very little clearance for even the thinnest, roundest sleeve surounding the cell.  At least they publically said you should be able to get a refund when it doesn't work in your product.  That could get interesting!  :)

I suspect there will be many devices that the Batteriser will not fit. If you have a linear arrangement of two or more batteries and spring arrangement there will not be enough compression available to accommodate multiple Batterisers.

I still have no idea on how to make an AAA sized one.



Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B



« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 07:02:09 pm by Jay_Diddy_B »
 

Offline Wytnucls

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2991
  • Country: be
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4271 on: January 24, 2016, 07:33:10 pm »
Looking at this picture, the PCB appears to be much thinner than yours.

http://www.bestpcbs.com/products/extra-thin-pcb.htm

« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 09:58:05 pm by Wytnucls »
 

Offline jippie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4272 on: January 24, 2016, 07:46:40 pm »
Looking at this picture, the PCB appears to be much thinner than yours.



I don't see any components on it, nor do I see any room for them. Look at the left one where the entire space seems to be taken up by the sleeve. On the thigt one I only see the spring contact.
 

Offline Wytnucls

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2991
  • Country: be
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4273 on: January 24, 2016, 07:50:12 pm »
It is deceptive, but the tiny components are on it. That particular sleeve was used for FCC or UL testing, if I remember correctly.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 07:51:46 pm by Wytnucls »
 

Offline jippie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)
« Reply #4274 on: January 24, 2016, 08:18:01 pm »
It is deceptive, but the tiny components are on it. That particular sleeve was used for FCC or UL testing, if I remember correctly.
Maybe you're right, the picture isn't particularly clear.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf