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

[FrankBuss]

I have some more data!

It's hilarious how the one with the boost converters (simulating batterisers) gets the shortest time.  That's using inductors that wouldn't fit into the batteriser.  If they don't put some disclaimers in their instructions manual that says "only use batteriser AFTER your product stops working, else you'll get reduced battery life.", I would be very surprised.

I'm also testing rechargable 2500 mAh nimh batteries at the moment, but couldn't wait until it's finished to put the other results into a combined graph.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, to keep the lines "thinner", I added a pretty aggressive weighted rolling average so you can tell the lines apart better.  The "noise" made the lines appear really thick, which made it hard to tell apart when they're near each other.



Link to full resolution image:

I asked the Garmin support last week about battery lifetime of the Approach G3 and if the Batteriser video is right that it only lasts for 1:52 hours. Today they answered: "Der Akku des Approach G3 hält im Normalfall bis zu 15 Stunden. In anderen Fällen liegt ein Defekt des Akkus vor." (translation: "Usually the battery of the Approach G3 lasts up to 15 hours. Otherwise the battery is broken."). I don't know why they said "Akku" (rechargeable battery), maybe they mean if someone uses it with NiMH batteries. So now their test is "officially" busted.

[FrankBuss]

PS: did someone already contact the Garmin CEO? Support might not care about it, but such a video is really bad publicity for their device and the Garmin CEO might be interested in it.

[Fungus]

PS: did someone already contact the Garmin CEO? Support might not care about it, but such a video is really bad publicity for their device and the Garmin CEO might be interested in it.

I doubt the CEO will care either.  The message in that video isn't that Garmin is bad, it's that you can get longer battery life with Batteriser.

If I was a Garmin CEO watching that video I'd be thinking, "Garmin brand GPS is being featured in a Youtube video! Yay!"

[Psycho]

And people watching it might think that this device just runs 2 hours without the batteriser...

[Galenbo]

If I was a Garmin CEO watching that video I'd be thinking, "Garmin brand GPS is being featured in a Youtube video! Yay!"

And all product managers have a quick look and think: That type isn't in my current personal products list.

[adprom]

By my reading, they are in breach of this by posting the single page by itself and using the UL name for promotional advertising on their main page.

Agreed they are breaking the law, and bringing their own evidence. But they probably know exactly how far they can stretch this. And until UL summons them explicitly to remove the UL logo from their website within x days they'll just leave it there. Well that's my guess.

It wouldn't be illegal - most likely a breach of contract.

[lpickup]

"UL LLC authorizes the above named company
to reproduce this Report provided it is reproduced in its entirety. The name, Brand or Marks of
UL LLC cannot be used in any packaging, advertising, promotion or marketing relating to the
data in this Report, without UL's prior written permission."

By my reading, they are in breach of this by posting the single page by itself and using the UL name for promotional advertising on their main page.

Then I don't think you read the first 3 words and the last 5 words.  Now I think the whole report is nothing more than a forgery, so this is moot, but technically this "letter" would constitute written permission from UL (assuming it's real) to use ONLY the report, in its entirety.

[adprom]

Then I don't think you read the first 3 words and the last 5 words.  Now I think the whole report is nothing more than a forgery, so this is moot, but technically this "letter" would constitute written permission from UL (assuming it's real) to use ONLY the report, in its entirety.

I suspect all 3 pages constitute the entire report given the letter stipulates what the testing did and didn't cover.

[PeterL]

Wherever this UL document came from, if you read this:

Per your request, project 4787059213 was opened, in accordance with your requested test protocol.

This:

UL LLC did not select the samples, determine whether the samples were representative of production samples, witness the production of the test samples, nor were we provided with information relative to the formulation or identification of component materials used in the test samples. The test results apply only to the actual samples tested.

And this:

The issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classification or Recognition by UL LLC

Then you know that UL did not do a performance test, so we got that confirmed now.

They (UL) just did a meaningless contract test job, and wrote down the result on little more than a post-it note.

And now these Batteroo guys are totally misusing the UL-notes to imply conformation of their ridicules claim.

I'd say this is bad behaviour for any company, but for a professor at a state university that Bob R. claims to be, that's just off the scale imho.

[edy]

I've attached a copy of some recent comments made on the IndieGogo campaign page, just in case they get deleted (which I suspect has already had)... See attached DOC.

I can't seem to find the original comment for some users, yet Ali replied to them.

[Fungus]

The issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classification or Recognition by UL LLC

Then you know that UL did not do a performance test, so we got that confirmed now.

They (UL) just did a meaningless contract test job, and wrote down the result on little more than a post-it note.

And now these Batteroo guys are totally misusing the UL-notes to imply conformation of their ridicules claim.

Batteriser web site clearly says: "UL, one of the oldest and most prestigious Labs, has performed independent Performance testing of a Garmin Golf GPS with and without Batteriser"

Which part of that report says "independent testing" to anybody?

I don't see how UL doesn't have a problem with that statement.

Of course their remedy will probably be a written 'cease and desist' letter which Batteriser can safely ignore for a month or two before complying with it.

[PeterL]

Which part of that report says "independent testing" to anybody?

To me it practically says the opposite, and that's the point I was trying to make.

They posted a document that proof's that their statement "UL.....has performed independent Performance testing..." is a lie, however weird that is..

Of course their remedy will probably be a written 'cease and desist' letter which Batteriser can safely ignore for a month or two before complying with it.

My thoughts also, and for now, a couple of weeks would even be beautiful for Batteriser.

[Stephan_T]

It seems the Batteriser CEO is going to claim in this newspaper article that I'm working for Duracell 

Ha, ha,

judging by your negative attitude towards NiMH rechargeables you kind of deserved that

Source: EEVblog #176 - Lithium Ion/Polymer Battery Charging Tutorial
"[...about MjMH rechargeble AA and AAA cells...]
they are a bit of a pain in the butt: they all have chemistry [...]"

Well, jokes aside, in the discussions about battery cutoff voltage ") i was a little bit disappointed about how you ignored the question of rechargeable batteries and how deep discharge can hurt and damage them.
From my point of view, rechargeable cells are the only real solution for the environmental issue about reducing the amount of batteries thrown away. I only use disposable batteries for very few devices with very low power consumption, where the self discharge of rechargeable cells make them questionable. NiMH are no pain in the ..., they are much better than throwing away lots of chemistry (hopefully into the recycling process, but many ignorant people will ignore even that). So when you talk and educate about cutoff voltage, i would like you to take into account, what it means for the relatively environment friendly rechargeable cells.

If you would do more of this, suspecting you being a BIG BATTERY agent would become less likely.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I have been a fly on this wall for long enough. I am enjoying this thread a lot and thought I would put in my 2 cents.

I decided to look into other battery related articles written by Hannah Francis, and found one here:
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/this-yoke-and-shell-battery-could-charge-your-phone-in-six-minutes-20150811-gix2vz#comments

It is about battery technology that could allow an iPhone battery to be fully charged within 6 minutes. Theory is nice, but ZERO math was applied to this article. The last person to comment on the article did some REAL math revealing the current involved in charging a battery that fast. It may be possible, but far from practical.

Based on Hannah's writing style of the above linked article, I would expect her to side with new technology along with little technical fact checking (if any).

And a reminder to batteriser...

[Godzil]

I have been a fly on this wall for long enough. I am enjoying this thread a lot and thought I would put in my 2 cents.

I decided to look into other battery related articles written by Hannah Francis, and found one here:
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/this-yoke-and-shell-battery-could-charge-your-phone-in-six-minutes-20150811-gix2vz#comments

It is about battery technology that could allow an iPhone battery to be fully charged within 6 minutes. Theory is nice, but ZERO math was applied to this article. The last person to comment on the article did some REAL math revealing the current involved in charging a battery that fast. It may be possible, but far from practical.

And a reminder to batteriser...

My concern with comment is not the math, they seems to be fine for me, but where does the "4 times 2500 mAh battery" come from?
And why speaking about 4 AA battery? this article is about charging a SMARTPHONE battery in 6 min, not replacing a NiMH battery, nor 4.

Based on Hannah's writing style of the above linked article, I would expect her to side with new technology along with little technical fact checking (if any). Also he made assumption that these battery will have a nominal voltage of 1.5V, but nothing tell that.

For example my iPhone 5s have a 5.92 Whr (1560 mAh) LiPo battery so the nominal voltage is 3.7V.

So taking the same calculation as him:

The battery is 1.56 Ah, T still be 6min,  so 0.1h
I = C / T = 1.56 / 0.1 = 15.6 A + 10% = 15.6 * 1.10 = 17.16A (not sure about that, the main goal of this article and type of batterie is that the charging efficiency is really high, 10% of loss is quite high for me)

So for the 240VAC vs DC output, 3.7/240 * 17.16 = 0.26A or mure accurately, charging such a battery in 6min would need a 60W charger (or approaching).
But that's normal that quick charge need more power. But such a battery will also mean that in the same conditions as it is currently the charge your battery will be much quicker.

I've search with my friend google, and a LiPo charging efficiency seems to be about 60 to 70%
NiMH seems to be about 85%.

So I suspect that such batteries would be higher than 90%.

Anyway, even a 90% efficiency against a 60% efficiency is about a 50% improvement in charge speed.


(and sorry if I say something stupid, my head hurts today)

[Stephan_T]

Based on Hannah's writing style of the above linked article, I would expect her to side with new technology along with little technical fact checking (if any).

And if not ...











she will be called a DURACELL bunny herself:

[Godzil]

Just read that on the sy-ynergy-77 channel comments from the man himself:

The trouble is 99% of you "engineers", with your heads in the clouds and up your asses at the same time, never turned a wrench and did anything in the real world. Although I have scholastic aptitude in the upper 1% in mathematics as proven by my name listed in Who's Who, I actually am a person that gets down and dirty in the practical application .   I know many times "engineers can be wrong and the joke "trust me, I an engineer" came into being for a reason.  You have no concern about scammers or else you'd be calling out the liars who kill people with chemo 'treating' cancer,  "Doctor".  I suggest that  if this issue bothers you so much, perhaps you need a prescription for lithium.

That just show how on earth this guy is.

I strongly doubt he is in the Who's Who, or the credibility of this list is no more

(and just look at his channel poster image, that add a lot of credibility to all of his work!

[joseph.anand]

I strongly doubt he is in the Who's Who, or the credibility of this list is no more

I think it is the latter than the former. In the last 10 years I have been nominated to this 3 times list and each time I declined to respond based on the following logic:
1. If indeed I get onto the list, that would be downgrading the achievements of people who are on the list and have actually done something exceptional.
2. If I get on this list and then discover that there are people who have done nothing whatsoever that would be degrading to me.

[Godzil]

No one ever asked me to be on this list

I'm angry

[f4eru]

Perhaps it's better that way :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Who_scam

[Godzil]

I still think that every EE, and EE enthousiast should be in the Who's Who

[Joule Thief]

Just read that on the sy-ynergy-77 channel comments from the man himself:

The trouble is 99% of you "engineers", with your heads in the clouds and up your asses at the same time, never turned a wrench and did anything in the real world. Although I have scholastic aptitude in the upper 1% in mathematics as proven by my name listed in Who's Who, I actually am a person that gets down and dirty in the practical application .   I know many times "engineers can be wrong and the joke "trust me, I an engineer" came into being for a reason.  You have no concern about scammers or else you'd be calling out the liars who kill people with chemo 'treating' cancer,  "Doctor".  I suggest that  if this issue bothers you so much, perhaps you need a prescription for lithium.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.64.2655

[Joule Thief]

[Godzil]

Yeah that why peoples who knows, feel that themselves are incompetent

[Groucho2005]

Wow, the guy in the video really likes the word "actually"