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

[Muttley Snickers]

Technically speaking, earlier I made metion of a particular battery that when new has an unloaded voltage of around 1.80 volts, and if or when the Batteriser sleeve ever becomes available what would be the likely outcome if poor old Joe average decided that by using these batteries with 7X longer life in conjunction with a sleeve with the promoted 8X additional longevity could he then expect to get 15 times longer battery life than a regular cell or would the sleeve have a detrimental effect on these lithium cells by dragging them down to the nominated 1.50 volt as indicated, or is there a risk that the sleeve could raise the output voltage of a cell above the 1.80 which for AAs is already at the top end as far as I am aware. These and many other scenarios need to be well thought out beforehand.

[Fungus]

The inductor that was used by ADI to get the datasheet graphs is too large for the space at the end of an AA cell.

True, but the datasheet has a whole list of suitable inductors (with part numbers). Some of them are really tiny.

[Bud]

So what happens if you mom puts one of those x.risers on rechargeable batteries in her lovely camera, then without obviously having a clue what this thingy is, connects the camera to the charger. Has it been discussed here? Sorry if I missed that.

[bktemp]

The inductor that was used by ADI to get the datasheet graphs is too large for the space at the end of an AA cell.

True, but the datasheet has a whole list of suitable inductors (with part numbers). Some of them are really tiny.

It is possible, but smaller inductors have either a higher DC resistance and therefore more losses or can handle only low currents because the ferrite core saturates.

[Wytnucls]

If you look at the datasheets, it is just the opposite (TDK  MLP2016 2016 [0806 inch]) :
Small inductor = small DC resistance
Small inductor = higher current

For instance:
2.2uH    2MHz   0.11 Ohm   1200mA max
4.7uH    2MHz   0.16 Ohm   1100mA max

To increase the output voltage, a bigger inductor is needed, with fast diminishing returns, as the inductance increases. 

[bktemp]

If you look at the datasheets, it is just the opposite (TDK  MLP2016 2016 [0806 inch]) :
Small inductor = small DC resistance
Small inductor = higher current

For instance:
2.2uH    2MHz   0.11 Ohm   1200mA max
4.7uH    2MHz   0.16 Ohm   1100mA max

To increase the output voltage, a bigger inductor is needed, with fast diminishing returns, as the inductance increases.

Yes, but we were talking about mechanical size, not inductance.
If you look at the graph, the 4.7uH version has lost half the inductance at 350mA. So the maximum output current will be very low. The 2.2uH is probably the better choice.

[Fungus]

So what happens if you mom puts one of those x.risers on rechargeable batteries in her lovely camera, then without obviously having a clue what this thingy is, connects the camera to the charger. Has it been discussed here? Sorry if I missed that.

Ummmm, no. I don't believe it has.

Does that even exist? What if people do it to alkalines?

[TheAmmoniacal]

FCC Compliance Update:
Our team has been receiving a lot of emails about FCC compliance. The good news is that we have completed the testing and passed the FCC compliance to the Following Standards:
FCC Part 15 Subpart B Section 15.109
The test report that we received bears the accreditation symbol indicating that the
testing performed meets the test and reporting requirements
of ISO/IEC 17025 under the applicable scope of EMC testing.

[firewalker]

Is that FCC process expensive?

Alexander.

[Bud]

The juce is in the "applicable scope of EMC testing", which means interferrence measured in relation to receiver/transmitter external to the device under test and at a specified distance from it. I am curious to see how much this thingy not cause interferrence  when installed in my portable ham radio handheld on receive, and not be affected when the radio goes on transmit. 

[EEVblog]

FCC Compliance Update:
Our team has been receiving a lot of emails about FCC compliance. The good news is that we have completed the testing and passed the FCC compliance to the Following Standards:
FCC Part 15 Subpart B Section 15.109
The test report that we received bears the accreditation symbol indicating that the
testing performed meets the test and reporting requirements
of ISO/IEC 17025 under the applicable scope of EMC testing.

It was only a few weeks ago that Bob himself said FCC testing was not required.
They got that done quick, which is possible I believe.

[FrankBuss]

An EMC test can be done in a few hours for such a simple product. I was once at a TÜV facility in Cologne to see how a product was tested which I helped developing:

http://www.tuev-sued.de/industry-and-consumer-products/-services/electromagnetic-compatibility-emc

The EMC chamber has a heavy door, like a bank safe, antennas can be moved remote controlled from outside and there was a wall of expensive Rohde and Schwarz scopes, spectrum analyzers, function generators etc. outside.

The tricky part is when the test fails. They have a large collection of ferrite rings and other EMC accessories for quick fixes, but if this doesn't help, a few kEuro are lost for the test cost and you have to rework your product, which might need some weeks, and then test it again. The Batteriser guys are lucky that they passed the test just before shipping.

PS: the ISO/IEC norms requires to use the product in a typical application and that you specify any special required hardware, like "tested with high quality shielded cables of manufacturer x". Would be interesting to read the full report. If they would test it with probes the monkey, I doubt it would pass the FCC requirements, because of high current spikes, unshielded battery and maybe cheap motors.

[EEVblog]

Would be interesting to read the full report.

The odds of them releasing that are about the same as them releasing the UL test report.

[EEVblog]

If such a 'successful' team, one of them holding 500 patents, needs kick starter founding for a product worth $2,50 in retail, you know exactly what’s going on.

They don't. Bob himself got a massive payout (after fighting for it) when he got sacked from being CEO of his former company (details on the forum), same month he formed Batteriser. More than what they got from this Indiegogo campaign.
Smart people don't use their own money though if they can avoid it, Bob is smart.

[EEVblog]

As I said before. Me senses tell they were aiming for the million target.

Obviously.
They are backed by a big VC company, $330K is chump change.

[ez24]

FCC Compliance Update:
Our team has been receiving a lot of emails about FCC compliance. The good news is that we have completed the testing and passed the FCC compliance to the Following Standards:
FCC Part 15 Subpart B Section 15.109
The test report that we received bears the accreditation symbol indicating that the
testing performed meets the test and reporting requirements
of ISO/IEC 17025 under the applicable scope of EMC testing.

I think this is like their VI vs T chart.  Note: "accreditation symbol"   A real report will use words.  My guess it is an unpaid invoice (before the lab will do the test) that they are referencing to and the FCC symbol is on the labs forms indicating the lab can do FCC testing. 

If you read this carefully - it is double talk

Edit: corrected quotes

[edy]

As much as their reputation may have been tarnished for mostly the English-speaking Web, do you think they still have a chance to sell millions of these in other countries? Are there Chinese or Korean or Iranian or Russian sites and media that could help them launch sales there? There is a huge non-English world out there with Internet that may not have access to translations of the YouTube debunking videos and articles, so if they go into those markets and not have anyone equivalent to Dave Jones to point out the fraud, they have another chance to start.

[5ky]

Hopefully not, but I'm sure they'll sell a ton anyway. 

[LabSpokane]

As I said before. Me senses tell they were aiming for the million target.

Obviously.
They are backed by a big VC company, $330K is chump change.

It's worth noting that SK has a $1M USD cap on its funding, which includes "services" and other intangibles. It's definitely not $1M cash.

[edy]

Well if they were idiots in asking for FLEXIBLE Funding and setting their funding goal too low (in order to "brag" and create a sense of over-funding delirium) and they really needed $2 million to make this happen, there is no way they will deliver to backers. So either they refund the money now, or walk away with it and have a bunch of angry backers chasing them. Or they keep dragging out the campaign and delay delivery until they scrounge up enough money to make this happen.

[onlooker]

I think all the "defeatists" should relax a little. It is not in the control of the forum members as to how their business will develop.

What we can do is to discuss the merits and demerits of their design and business practice. If we are having fun by such discussions and, at the some time, get more people to recognize the scam nature of their product, we should smile.

Besides, if this is really something that can sell in other countries, clones with much lower prices will popup in no time. It should be a lot easier to clone a bad product since one can hardly do worse.

[LabSpokane]

I think all the "defeatists" should relax a little. It is not in the control of the forum members as to how their business will develop.

What we can do is to discuss the merits and demerits of their design and business practice. If we are having fun by such discussions and, at the some time, get more people to recognize the scam nature of their product, we should smile.

It's worth talking about what it really takes capital-wise to start one of these ventures.  There's a bunch of business practices in the crowdfunding market that need to be addressed.  Undercapitalization is a major issue - as is an over-ambitious goal.  The Batteriser really is a series of teachable moments from many different aspects of designing, building, and selling a consumer-oriented electronics product:  thermodynamics, battery chemistry, low-battery cutoff techniques, boost-converter design, "napkin estimation," component price negotiation, custom manufacturing, tooling, marketing, seeking capital, retail distribution, and probably a lot more that I've missed. 

Batteroo really nailed the marketing and distribution channels out of the chute.  You have to admire them for that.  The industrial design is fairly slick as well, it just is going to have manufacturability issues. 

It's rare to get to watch something like this run its course from start to finish.  So, as long as the discussion is mature and objective, these things are worth talking about. 

[Davey_Jonez]

Time was 9 hr 38 min from start until it shut off.  What's interesting is that even while using boost converters, the bare GPS without using the boost converters went almost nearly as low in voltage before it shut off, so I have a feeling if I re-run this with teh battery mode set to lithium (so the screen never dims), batteries will probably run longer due to avoiding the losses in the boost converters.  I'll probably test that tonight for fun.
Without boost converters:

And don't you just love those dips way below the product cutoff voltage, and wow!, what you know, the product didn't switch off!
Oops, just busted Batteriser "Technical" video that was all about those dreaded voltage dips 

I believe the test fail is either when it shut off or shows the error message about the back light. When did the back light error come up?

[Davey_Jonez]

A phone call doesn't sound that bad. You can discuss with her the facts, it might help other people who otherwise would buy the Batteriser.

Phone calls are always a bad idea when dealing with the press. There is no record of exactly what was said or the way it was said.

Sounds more like chicken shit. Cannot discuss anything without your blog goons?

[AmmoJammo]

I believe the test fail is either when it shut off or shows the error message about the back light. When did the back light error come up?

Its not an "error" message 

And it was after about 6.5 hours.

Of course, I always turn my phone off when the battery indicator drops one bar, isn't that the normal thing to do?