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

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

Are there one sided v-scores? If so, board might be flipped, v-score on other side? Or maybe using a depanelizer?

I might have bad eyes..... wheres the converter?

If you look realy closely you can notice at least a "big" cap at the downright edge, just where the sleeve connects to the pcb, so I assume there is actually some circuitry on there. How well it works... we will see "soooooon" 

Curious because I thought the converter was the component needing redesign?  I do think the park on the bottom right looks to be a passive. The pic is fairly low res unfortunately.

Guys... you're all missing something here...

Those PCBs are loaded with no IC... the pads are empty....

Well that explains why I couldn't see the converter.... it's not there, just the pads

[Fungus]

Well that explains why I couldn't see the converter.... it's not there, just the pads

These are obviously prototypes for figuring out how to attach the sleeves to the PCBs, not final production.

Why would they have PCBs with caps but no chips? Maybe the chip didn't arrive yet and they were testing some other part of production.

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

Well that explains why I couldn't see the converter.... it's not there, just the pads

These are obviously prototypes for figuring out how to attach the sleeves to the PCBs, not final production.

Why would they have PCBs with caps but no chips? Maybe the chip didn't arrive yet and they were testing some other part of production.

Maybe for the conformal coating? The parts selected seem to be the tallest components. The other pic for the other battery size shows what looks to be just after coating. And the clamping jig has central finger where the coating wouldnt be applied - may function as a mask.

[Fungus]

The only thing that really bothers me is the name "Batteriser" in those pics. They have the Energiser lawsuit hanging over them and a couple of months ago they changed the spelling on the prototypes they were showing (I can't find the pics of that, anybody remember where they are...?)

We kind of decided that they were from an earlier prototype:

Nah, a few months ago all the pictures they were publishing had spelling like this:


I remember some pics of the standard pink AA sized Batterisers spelled like that as well but I can't find any now. 

Ref: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-%28the-batteriser%29/msg873076/#msg873076

[Halcyon]

My bet is that the photos are old, the EXIF data is probably mostly legit as they did originate from that old Sony camera, just the date and times have been modified.

[Fungus]

Why would they have PCBs with caps but no chips? Maybe the chip didn't arrive yet and they were testing some other part of production.

Maybe for the conformal coating? The parts selected seem to be the tallest components.

The capacitors might be there for testing height clearances in the jig.

[MLXXXp]

It's interesting that the tide seems to have turned, though. Even after Bob has posted an update, there's been nothing but negative comments made by backers on Indiegogo. No "Thanks for the update" or "Keep up the good work".

Also, I wonder why they've stopped deleting the negative comments. Do you think maybe Indiegogo has asked them not to, or prevented them from doing so?

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

For those interested here are the links to the higher res pictures:

These have full EXIF data, photos taken on the 3rd March.

First image (pcb and plate) February 24th

[meeder]

My bet is that the photos are old, the EXIF data is probably mostly legit as they did originate from that old Sony camera, just the date and times have been modified.

I think they are legit. I don't think they would go so far as to use an exif editor.

[drussell]

b) They're about to announce the Energiser lawsuit to the world.
c) The Energiser lawsuit means the entire imaginary production run will have to be "scrapped".

There is no lawsuit yet... Energizer has nothing to sue them over (yet...)

Energizer opposed their application to register the Batteriser trademark but that is not a lawsuit.

I do agree that Batteroo still need to figure out what they're going to to about the final name...  Calling them Batterisers is probably a bad idea unless they come to some kind of agreement with Energizer, I'll grant you that...

... but there is no lawsuit as yet...

[drussell]

These have full EXIF data, photos taken on the 3rd March.

Assuming the date on the camera was set correctly when the photos were taken (which will be a manual process since it's not a cell phone or something that would be able to set the date itself) and (as others have pointed out) that they have not modified the EXIF info dates, etc.  Not that it really matters, of course. 

I know that on my old HP camera, which I still sometimes use for things, it is pertty much never set correctly since it loses the date and time whenever you remove the batteries for any significant length of time and so I just never bother to set it. 

[Fungus]

I know that on my old HP camera, which I still sometimes use for things, it is pertty much never set correctly since it loses the date and time whenever you remove the batteries for any significant length of time and so I just never bother to set it. 

Yep, I thought that as well. What's the chances of them bothering to set the date correctly for those photos?  That's almost suspicious all by itself.

I have to admit these photos are a bit of a curvebal and I'm not sure what to think. The only theories I can come up with are:
a) It's a con and they did edit the EXIF data. The photos are of some prototyping they did last year.

Editing EXIF isn't rocket science and the Batterisers they were to Yahoo showing last summer were professionally manufactured, not hand-made. It's almost certain that they have some prototyping junk lying around somewhere to photograph.


b) It's not a con and they're actually manufacturing something.

This only makes sense if they've hooked some new investors. They know they won't get any repeat orders so there's no way they'd spend any of their own personal money on manufacturing Batterisers. It would be money down the drain from their point of view.

Conclusion: If they're spending money on manufacturing it must be somebody else's money.

What if they've got a big new investor who's prepared to invest in the company so long as manufacturing starts up ASAP? That would explain this.

Then again: Why post crappy photos on IndieGoGo? What's the point of that?  The only person interested in updates would be the new investor.


c) They've had a change of heart. All the negative comments have struck home and they decided to spend their own money to make things right, even though they know it doesn't work as advertised and they won't get any repeat business.

[PA0PBZ]

I know that on my old HP camera, which I still sometimes use for things, it is pertty much never set correctly since it loses the date and time whenever you remove the batteries for any significant length of time and so I just never bother to set it. 

Yeah, but what are the odds that they took this pictures last year and set the date on the camera to 03-2016? If anything is forged it has to be the EXIF data.

[Fungus]

what are the odds that they took this pictures last year and set the date on the camera to 03-2016?

Less than the odds of setting the correct date last month when they took the pictures.

[Macbeth]

One thing in Batteroos favour is they are calling their product a Batteriser, not a Batterizer. For some reason even my google forum spell check is underlining the Batteriser as a mistake with the red squigglies and yet allowing Batterizer a free pass. Clearly its spelling and grammar checks are Americurricanized^TM.

Energiser, sorry, Energizer can go fuck themselves if they want to bring the lawyers in. As much as Batteriser is a scam, I cannot support a big corporate using ridiculously broad trademark interpretations, shit patents, and other "IP" expensive lawyer scams as a ploy to destroy any small business startup. I don't take any pleasure in others using that avenue to attack Batteroo.

[LabSpokane]

Folks,

Anybody who would post a picture of a De-Sta-Co clamp with shims under the rubber tip because he/she doesn't understand how to adjust the clamp isn't smart enough to alter EXIF data. 

Everyone involved with the Batteriser is utterly, fucking hopeless. 

[Zbig]

For some reason even my google forum spell check is underlining the Batteriser as a mistake with the red squigglies and yet allowing Batterizer a free pass.

Switch your OS's language settings from "English (UK)" to "English (US)" and chances are it will do the opposite.

[Macbeth]

Anybody who would post a picture of a De-Sta-Co clamp with shims under the rubber tip because he/she doesn't understand how to adjust the clamp isn't smart enough

But surely they are using the same Batteroo physics? I would hazard a guess that the shim is just their application of mechanics to the electrical 1V vs 1.4V dead battery - that is perhaps a 4mm shim. Proving how clamp manufacturers have been ripping off their customers for decades when they could just have a 4mm shim, made from sponge so it could be compressed between 1mm-4mm. 

[Macbeth]

Switch your OS's language settings from "English (UK)" to "English (US)" and chances are it will do the opposite.

Sorry, the very idea made the hairs stand on end. I had to make a cup of strong tea to recover. Thank you anyway.

[Zbig]

Switch your OS's language settings from "English (UK)" to "English (US)" and chances are it will do the opposite.

Sorry, the very idea made the hairs stand on end. I had to make a cup of strong tea to recover. Thank you anyway.

What color was it? Was it gray like an aging tire or oxidized aluminum? 

[Macbeth]

Earl Grey thank you. I know you eastern europeans like tea as much as Brits do, but with lemon and sugar. Earl Grey is made with bergamot so no need for lemon. Of course proper assam tea is so stronk it needs milk to counter the tannic acid. Closer to aging tyre than aluminium oxide.

[lincoln]

Macbeth just now :    

[EEVblog]

Yep, I thought that as well. What's the chances of them bothering to set the date correctly for those photos?  That's almost suspicious all by itself.
I have to admit these photos are a bit of a curvebal and I'm not sure what to think. The only theories I can come up with are:
b) It's not a con and they're actually manufacturing something.
This only makes sense if they've hooked some new investors. They know they won't get any repeat orders so there's no way they'd spend any of their own personal money on manufacturing Batterisers. It would be money down the drain from their point of view.

I think it's this, occum's razor and all. The photo dates are real, and they are simply still trying to figure out how to make the things.
That's why they didn't show the photos a month ago when they had them.

Conclusion: If they're spending money on manufacturing it must be somebody else's money.
What if they've got a big new investor who's prepared to invest in the company so long as manufacturing starts up ASAP? That would explain this.

They already have an investor, SKTA Innopartners. There is zero evidence how much money they actually go, apart from "up to 1 million dollars" and under what conditions they they have been handing out the money. It's entirely plausible they still have money left from that.

Then again: Why post crappy photos on IndieGoGo? What's the point of that?  The only person interested in updates would be the new investor.

Nope. IGG have put pressure on them. It's not the first time we have seen this IIRC.

The photos are obviously a ruse to finally show that something has been happening. They come with basically no explanation, are at least a month old, and after analysis don't really show they are production ready.
If they truly were production ready they would be screaming from mountain tops about how wonderful it all is, giving all sorts of technical detail, and they would have posted the photos a month ago when they were taken.

[EEVblog]

One thing in Batteroos favour is they are calling their product a Batteriser, not a Batterizer. For some reason even my google forum spell check is underlining the Batteriser as a mistake with the red squigglies and yet allowing Batterizer a free pass. Clearly its spelling and grammar checks are Americurricanized^TM.

And if they think they can get away with that, then they are dumber than Probs the Monkey. Energizer will win their Trademark dispute, and then will sue Batteroo out of existance if they ship a single unit with the name on it. Retroactively too, because Batteroo know the name is being contested, but look to be taking the risk and shipping anyway.

Energiser, sorry, Energizer can go fuck themselves if they want to bring the lawyers in. As much as Batteriser is a scam, I cannot support a big corporate using ridiculously broad trademark interpretations, shit patents, and other "IP" expensive lawyer scams as a ploy to destroy any small business startup. I don't take any pleasure in others using that avenue to attack Batteroo.

I half agree. But the other half of me says Batteroo are being deliberately deceptive with the name and letter change and Energizer have every right to go after them.

[AmmoJammo]

Well that explains why I couldn't see the converter.... it's not there, just the pads

These are obviously prototypes for figuring out how to attach the sleeves to the PCBs, not final production.

Why would they have PCBs with caps but no chips? Maybe the chip didn't arrive yet and they were testing some other part of production.

There's no part on the largest pads on the PCB either, probably the inductor.

You don't assemble half a PCB to check clearances, or see how final assembly can be done.

You either run with a completely unpopulated PCB, or fully loaded, even if it does any up getting scrapped.