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

[5ky]

What I don't get is this, and this could be a great example of how Batteriser could drastically REDUCE longevity (and not just because of the boost converter inefficiency).  In alkaline mode, the device "prematurely" dims the screen (even at 1/2 to 3/4 remaining battery on the on-screen-display).  Actually probably a prudent step to take to extend battery life.  Now we all suspect that Batteroo simply concluded the non-Batteriser test at this point and called the product "dead" (which it probably was not).

Can someone please just get one of these things and bust this right open?
It's easy, just time how long it works. If it's longer than the 2hrs they got when the screen dimmed and they implied it stopped working, then their video is embarrassingly wrong (which seems to be the case).
It's a Garmin Approach G3

Working on it.

The other problem with this firmware "feature" is that apparently it will force the backlight off with Alkalines, so that won't be a fair comparison with the Batteriser in terms of total operational time.
Still will give a useful measure though.
This might be able to be got around by forcing another battery type.
Or what I would do is perhaps measure the current raw with backlight on and off to see how much the backlight takes, and when the message pops up and the backlight turns off, switch on a dummy load to take the equivalent backlight current. Keep that load in place until the GPS dies. Then you'll have a true operational time comparison with the Batteriser.

Of course, just proving the GPS continues to work after the message pops up proves Batteroo's video to be wrong. Because they aren't taking into account a firmware feature of the product that is designed to protect the battery life on Alkaline batteries.
In fact, I fail to see why they needed the backlight robotic finger to begin with, can't the GPS simply stay switched on like you'd normally use it?

I have a non-golfing garmin gps that's similar size to that one, screen size and all, and the backlight just turns off after a few minutes to save energy, but the unit stays on indefinitely.  If you touch a button or the screen, the backlight comes back on.  The unit I have is incredible in broad daylight--the color screen is fully visible in direct sunlight without the backlight on.  I'm not sure how they do it but it's awesome.  A set of AA batteries lasted me a few full-day float trips with it "on" the entire time, and that's with it baking in the 95 degree sun all day.  I'm REALLY skeptical of their claims in that video.

On Wednesday, we shall see how much they were twisting the truth.

EDIT: typos

[LabSpokane]

In fact, I fail to see why they needed the backlight robotic finger to begin with, can't the GPS simply stay switched on like you'd normally use it?

With the unit I tested, setting the backlight to never dim was simple.

Continuously tapping the screen will up the power consumption slightly by working the cpu harder, but only enough to affect the runtime by maybe an hour or so. It's really a silly test since no one uses a GPS like that.

I did like that the finger actuator was simply a relay that they cracked open.

[edy]

They did it to make their test setup look more scientific and controlled. Still, the easiest test would have been to buy 2 devices, open up brand new batteries for each and whack one set in as-is and the other set with Batterisers, and set up a time-lapse camera taking shots every minute until both are dead. Make the photos into a video and post it. Simple and easy proof.

Then repeat with 2 monkeys, 2 radios, 2 flashlights.... very simple actually. Stuff for a middle-school science fair project. No need to understand the "magic" going on in the Batteriser, just measure the device performance over time (speed of movement, light intensity, screen contrast, reception/volume).

Give some Batterisers to a bunch of 6th graders and they will have no problem doing it.

[EEVblog]

Continuously tapping the screen will up the power consumption slightly by working the cpu harder, but only enough to affect the runtime by maybe an hour or so. It's really a silly test since no one uses a GPS like that.

That's the thing, why do that? Why not just use the GPS as you are supposed to? 

[EEVblog]

On Wednesday, we shall see how much they were twisting the truth.

Please make a quick video of the test!

[5ky]

On Wednesday, we shall see how much they were twisting the truth.

Please make a quick video of the test!

I will start testing as soon as I'm home on Wednesday and will hopefully have the video up that night.  I'll then come post the link here

[kalleboo]

What's funny now is if you search YouTube for "batteriser" (I tried it in a private browsing window so it wouldn't be influenced by my subscriptions), the first video is Dave's debunking, then another debunking, then Dave's monkey video and THEN finally their own explanation video.

[Halcyon]

What's funny now is if you search YouTube for "batteriser" (I tried it in a private browsing window so it wouldn't be influenced by my subscriptions), the first video is Dave's debunking, then another debunking, then Dave's monkey video and THEN finally their own explanation video.

The system works :-)

[Fungus]

What's funny now is if you search YouTube for "batteriser" (I tried it in a private browsing window so it wouldn't be influenced by my subscriptions), the first video is Dave's debunking, then another debunking, then Dave's monkey video and THEN finally their own explanation video.

Try it on a browser that isn't full of your personal history....see the difference?

[Galenbo]

Maybe the batteriser is in a always on state which causes even faster draining....

It seems likely that it is. There's no way to shut down a booster that has to work everywhere.

eg. They show it in remote controls and Apple keyboards, devices which only consume microamps when they're idle. If it doesn't shut down in those devices then it probably has no shut down capability.

Yes, I also mentioned this before. There's no way for "the batteriser concept" to know if some device is idle or not, and keeps on "working", draining the battery 800% more than without "the batteriser concept"

[janekm]

Maybe the batteriser is in a always on state which causes even faster draining....

It seems likely that it is. There's no way to shut down a booster that has to work everywhere.

eg. They show it in remote controls and Apple keyboards, devices which only consume microamps when they're idle. If it doesn't shut down in those devices then it probably has no shut down capability.

Yes, I also mentioned this before. There's no way for "the batteriser concept" to know if some device is idle or not, and keeps on "working", draining the battery 800% more than without "the batteriser concept"

Actually, I would argue that would be possible... Have a comparator for the incoming battery voltage, and only engage the boost converter when the battery voltage is below say 1.2V or so (that doesn't seem to be what they're doing since the Apple keyboard was reporting "100%" battery level of course, but I'm just saying it should be possible)...

[lpickup]

Continuously tapping the screen will up the power consumption slightly by working the cpu harder, but only enough to affect the runtime by maybe an hour or so. It's really a silly test since no one uses a GPS like that.

That's the thing, why do that? Why not just use the GPS as you are supposed to? 

Well, one reason would be to speed up the test.  Almost all reviews of the G3 I said claimed it lasted 2-3 round of golf (WITHOUT the Batteriser!) meaning that the non-Batteriser test would have taken about 15 hours, and of course the Batteiser, because it could extend the life of the GPS unit 5X as they showed in the video would take 75 hours!  We could make a similar critique that they are testing this thing indoors where it obviously is not getting a GPS signal and in preview mode.  But actually I'm okay with all of those "non-realistic" aspects of the test, as long as it's apples to apples with the Batteriser.

But I think we all know the real reason is that it gave them a convenient point to call the product "dead" (when the screen is FORCED dim) at a suitable time that backed up their claim of tapping into 80% of energy remaining.

We don't have to actually test it.  Batteroo have done it for us already.  At 30:33 in the full-length video they show us the oscilloscope trace "at the last cycle" when the device "failed" (see picture which is Chris pointing to the spike that triggered the screen dim message, or in his words exactly:  "The point that the device failed is right here").  Do you see the current draw drop to 0?  Do you see the voltage recover to its unloaded voltage?  No, the device clearly continues to operate.

[dagga]

My first post, but I've been following this debacle for a few weeks. I'm not a batteroo shill, I promise.

I noticed this ad on the eevblog front page today. I believe Batteroo's ad budget may be more well spent somewhere else

[Godzil]

We were speaking about potato energy on another thread, Dave do you think they should also make a potatorizer?

I think that caracterise a potato energy should be done.

That would be really helpful for powering Probe!

[onlooker]

We don't have to actually test it.  Batteroo have done it for us already.  At 30:33 in the full-length video they show us the oscilloscope trace "at the last cycle" when the device "failed" (see picture which is Chris pointing to the spike that triggered the screen dim message, or in his words exactly:  "The point that the device failed is right here").  Do you see the current draw drop to 0?  Do you see the voltage recover to its unloaded voltage?  No, the device clearly continues to operate

I did not watch that video,  but, it does raise an important question about their red/green current vs timing chart.

The red one was for w/o batteriser and it showed an about 30 minutes interval at the end of the discharge curve, then the current dropped to zero. This time interval was presumably due to the reduced backlight mode kicked in.

The question is whether  anyone knows if this discharge termination was due to low battery auto shutoff or due to maually switching off the GPS?  I always thought they implied the former. But, it could just be the chart being intentionally misleading. Since they decided to call the starting point of the low backlight mode as the failing point, they may have just turned off the GPS after a short time.

[edy]

My first post, but I've been following this debacle for a few weeks. I'm not a batteroo shill, I promise.

I noticed this ad on the eevblog front page today. I believe Batteroo's ad budget may be more well spent somewhere else

The ad is likely customized to your browsing history and profile. If you have been following Batteriser for a while, you are part of their target market and now your browser will show ads for it.

Try browsing a bunch of feminine beauty product sites, kids toy sites and nutritional and weight-loss sites for a few days and see how all the ads you see will change. You can also go in to your Google account settings and customize ad preferences as well.

Remember these 3rd party ad banners are not served up by Dave or any other content site directly. They are just "place-holders" on sites, and the ads just get fetched and inserted there by independent sites that monitor your behaviour and interests and try to feed you ads that the advertiser chose for you because they believe you would be most likely to click it.

If your neighbor had a toothache and had been looking for a dentist for the past week, EEVBLOG would be showing him local dentists! 

The best way to deal with the Batteriser ads is CLICK THEM wherever you see them. That depletes the Batteriser ad budget, but also the clicks on EEVBLOG site generate income for Dave to keep EEVBLOG going.

[lpickup]

The red one was for w/o batteriser and it showed an about 30 minutes interval at the end of the discharge curve, then the current dropped to zero. This time interval was presumably due to the reduced backlight mode kicked in.

The question is whether  anyone knows if this discharge termination was due to low battery auto shutoff or due to maually switching off the GPS?  I always thought they implied the former. But, it could just be the chart being intentionally misleading.

Yeah, I have wondered the same thing.  To me it seemed like the screen dim was the cause of the first drop, and that the unit completely shut off (on its own) for the final drop.  But I have listened very carefully to what the narrator says in that video and I changed my mind--to me it became plausible that in fact they considered the test over when the screen dimmed and not when the device shut off.

After the full length video where it clearly shows the device is still operating past the point that they say, and I quote, "the device failed", that sealed it for me.  They definitely cheated on this.  I suspect that in the original test they let the device run for a short while (20-30 minutes) with the dim screen/error message and then just manually shut it off.  I don't know whether they intentionally let it run with a dim screen to throw off skeptics, or if they simply left the room and came back and saw it like that and shut down the experiment, but nonetheless I have practically no doubt that they prematurely terminated the experiment before the device actually died.

[Godzil]

I've got mine too! 

[edy]

I've got mine too! 

Nice... Now if we all click the Batteriser ads that show up on EEVBlog, not only do we deplete Batteroo's ad budget but also earn Dave some cash! Perfect!

[Galenbo]

if some device is idle or not, ...

Actually, I would argue that would be possible... Have a comparator for the incoming battery voltage, and only engage the boost converter when the battery voltage is below say 1.2V or so...

In case the device is off:

That adds the consumption of a constantly working comparator
+
losses/efficiency of that comparator's direct/boost switch
+
all the continuous extra loss when the battery voltage is below your 1.2V.

[Godzil]

In fact I suspect that this device would much more interesting if it just work as a pass-through when the battery voltage is more than 1.1V or 1.0V, then activate with the battery goes to that voltage to maintain the voltage to 1.1 or 1.0V. (or a user specified switch voltage)

So that it's only used at the end of the battery life and may really give a few more time, not so long for sure and would not trick the battery indicator thinking that the battery is full.

[kalleboo]

Try it on a browser that isn't full of your personal history....see the difference?

It was right there in my post that you quoted... "I tried it in a private browsing window so it wouldn't be influenced". "Private browsing" is a feature of all modern browsers where it blocks all access to your cookies/javascript databases/history/etc.

[Galenbo]

In fact I suspect that this device would much more interesting if it just work as a pass-through when the battery voltage is more than 1.1V or 1.0V, then activate with the battery goes to that voltage to maintain the voltage to 1.1 or 1.0V. (or a user specified switch voltage)

Same problems, causing significantly lower autonomy, remain.

[Galenbo]

I've got mine too! 

Nice... Now if we all click the Batteriser ads that show up on EEVBlog, not only do we deplete Batteroo's ad budget but also earn Dave some cash! Perfect!

Is a click enough or are there trackers that keep record of the time you spend on that batteroo site?

[Fungus]

Actually, I would argue that would be possible... Have a comparator for the incoming battery voltage, and only engage the boost converter when the battery voltage is below say 1.2V or so (that doesn't seem to be what they're doing since the Apple keyboard was reporting "100%" battery level of course, but I'm just saying it should be possible)...

Even a tiny bit of extra circuitry like a comparator could easily halve the battery life in a remote control or Apple keyboard.

eg. Here's a special low power comparator: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/sbos300b/sbos300b.pdf

It has a 2.8uA Quiescent Current. It doesn't sound like much but it's probably about the same as those devices.