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

[edy]

Let's assume for a moment that the UL report is real. The first page pretty much sums it up. My understanding is that they verified that the test setup and devices used gave the results they measured.

We already know the test setup was designed to give the results Batteroo wanted to show. The experimental setup was flawed from the beginning, as was their criteria for stopping the test, their method of measurement and so on.

UL is simply verifying that "as is stated" the Batteroo people are not just pulling numbers out of their arse.

It is like a Notary Public whose job it is to witness that someone signed a document on a certain day and that it was the person named. The Notary Public stamp in no way gives any credence to what is actually contained in the document... All it can attest to is that the person who signed it actually showed some government ID and was heard taking an oath and swore they read everything in the document and answered it truthfully, and that it happened on a certain date and place.

So as far as I can tell, at least from what I understand on the first page, is that UL just stood by like an observer and signed off that given this "rigged" experiment and a pile of devices and batteries that were provided by Batteroo, that they saw what Batteroo saw. Nothing more.

Imagine a magician showing you how they can make an elephant disappear. You are called in as an "observer". The magician makes sure you sit in exactly the right spot in the theatre, without any extra tools (binoculars, flashlight, xray machine) and asked to write down what you observe during the trick. The elephant is there one moment, and then "poof" it is gone. Obviously if you were given the task of actually verifying that the elephant did disappear you would have the ability to move around, look at the stage from different angles, use various instruments and cameras to detect the elephant movement and so on. Nothing of the sort happened with this "UL test". Anyone reading the first page would see this.

I guess the question is, how many people will download and read it? It's enough just to have "UL" on their website, nobody will dig any deeper, and through association alone they will be considered legit. People will assume it was tested. But as far as I can see they can't put the UL logo anywhere, so how does the legal team work their way around this, especially since it is a website and they are only using the logo in association with links to this document of theirs (not with Batteriser). Seems like they are cleverly walking that grey line down the middle that let's them get away with it.

[f4eru]

They clearly says "Ultra Power delivers up to 40% more power"

So Bateroo is in fact Big Battery, and Duracell already use half a batteriser in their battery!

Just a small but important correction :

Duracell already use up to half a batteriser in their battery!

don't mess with the amount of batterizers

[Fungus]

So as far as I can tell, at least from what I understand on the first page, is that UL just stood by like an observer and signed off that given this "rigged" experiment and a pile of devices and batteries that were provided by Batteroo, that they saw what Batteroo saw. Nothing more.

Yep, that's all it is.

...but it specifically says:

"UL LLC authorizes the above named company to reproduce this Report provided it is reproduced in its entirety."

Batteroo's front page doesn't show the entire document.

...it also says:

"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."

Batteroo is definitely using UL's name to promote their product.

Do they have written permission? We don't know yet, obviously. (the person who gave them that might have given them a letter as well...)

The main problem is lack of dates/signatures. I bet somebody higher up at UL would want some answers if they saw this being used to promote snake oil.

[lpickup]

The UL "report" from butteriser is probably real....

However, I'm not sure about their test results, and.... wouldn't their test procedure have required someone to sit there, and watch the GPS screen for 10+ hours? 

I'm surprised that you folks are even remotely believing this crap!  (sorry, this is not meant as a personal statement on you AmmoJammo, just the general trend the posts are taking).

You don't think that the same guy behind Batteriser Fan Page (who I think probably produced this "report") is capable of doing their own Google search to get the wording that UL uses?  In fact, they probably downlaoded an actual PDF they found, converted to a Word doc and substituted their own page 2, which they had previously whipped up manually (in like a day or two after the whole "certification" issue was brought to their attention) based on what they saw.  They thought we would all buy that load of garbage, and when we didn't, they went back and did a better job of it.

This is the only way I can explain things like the font changes and the 3rd "blank" page.  And about that--there is no need to put an "INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK" third page.  You would only do this on an actual blank page, such as between sections of a document, or on the last even page, so that when printed duplex you don't have an ACTUAL blank page.  By putting a 3rd blank page, you'd end up with a 4th blank page you'd need to mark as well.

So here's what I think the timeline of events was:

1)  A comment was posted asking about FCC certification
2)  Bob initially claimed that FCC certification was not applicable
3)  He then corrected himself and said that certification was underway (meaning they were scrambling at Batteroo on creating something they could show that would "show" certification.
4)  Somewhere at Batteroo there was a miscommunication/blown assumption and the person (Batteriser Fan Page) figured it was UL certification that Bob wanted.  They did a Google search and found this type of UL evaluation report.  Screen grabbed the logo and created the rest of the initial report by hand, resulting in a pretty crappy "report" which is now page 2 in the "full" report.  Like the initial monkey videos with the el cheapo lab equipment fresh out of the box, the amateur that did this figured it would pass muster with the critics.
5)  Of course it didn't, so they set out to create a more "professional" looking report.
6)  Meanwhile Bob saw that it wasn't an FCC report after all, so he just simply announced FCC certification (in record time no doubt!) without any images or actual documentation that could be criticised.
7)  So the UL "report" author converted the orginal PDF they found on the web to a Word doc (that fixed the logo screen capture issue, yay!)  Changed the project number slightly.  Changed the inside address and salutation.  Removed the signatures because obviously that would be too easy to investigate.  Cut and paste their initial attempt at the report into page 2 (of course the font doesn't match, but they couldn't be bothered to actually fix this).  Removed the bulk of the original report, keeping the "official looking" THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK page, even though you would never put it on an odd page.  The cover letter section specifically prohibits using only a portion of the document--either the amateur didn't even read this (otherwise they probably would have deleted it), or they foolishly thought we wouldn't notice.
  Output their "masterpiece" to a PDF and post to their website.  Voila!

BTW, I won't criticize the spelling and grammatical errors (of which there are plenty).  I mean, c'mon guys, engineers are FAMOUS for having poor writing skills.  I found errors in the legit report:

RESULTS
Their [was] [was not] the presence of visible smoke and grease-laden
air from the appliance during testing.

but I mean, c'mon...getting the COMPANY name wrong?  That's just lame.

There is NO WAY this UL thing is real.  It is a complete fabrication.  Does anyone really believe that UL supplied Batteroo (or is it Batteriser, Inc. now?) with just page 2, and then it took a week or so to supply the cover letter and blank page?  No, if this was real from the start, the full 3 page "report" would have been provided and Batteroo would have access to it and could have uploaded the entire PDF right from the start.  Sorry, the  is off the chart on this one.

[tree]

It seems like they're hell-bent on releasing their pathetic gizmo on the unsuspecting American public.

I think we need to alert the CDC

[Wytnucls]

Being appointed a company board director usually comes with some financial compensation.
Coupled with the inflated management team, that's an awful lot of people on the payroll already, for a tiny company that hasn't yet released its $2.50 flawed product.

SKTA probably owns a large share of the Batteroo business and, if they are issuing guidance, are as much to blame for the misinformation being fed to the public.

[firewalker]

I'm surprised that you folks are even remotely believing this crap!  (sorry, this is not meant as a personal statement on you AmmoJammo, just the general trend the posts are taking).

You don't think that the same guy behind Batteriser Fan Page (who I think probably produced this "report") is capable of doing their own Google search to get the wording that UL uses?  In fact, they probably downlaoded an actual PDF they found, converted to a Word doc and substituted their own page 2, which they had previously whipped up manually (in like a day or two after the whole "certification" issue was brought to their attention) based on what they saw.  They thought we would all buy that load of garbage, and when we didn't, they went back and did a better job of it.

They are not so stupid to do so.

Alexander.

[Wytnucls]

It seems like they're hell-bent on releasing their pathetic gizmo on the unsuspecting American public.

I think we need to alert the CDC

Vaccination only requires a dose of common sense.

[Wytnucls]

Except that when I enquired about the project with UL, without mentioning Batteriser in my email, the UL response had this in the subject line:

Batteriser Inc. Project#4787059213 Inquiry

So, the project number is legitimate and Batteroo is known as Batteriser Inc. at UL.

[Fungus]

Except that when I enquired about the project with UL, without mentioning Batteriser in my email, the UL response had this in the subject line:

Batteriser Inc. Project#4787059213 Inquiry

So, the project number is legitimate.

I've seen employees at large computer manufacturers slip a few machines out the back door in exchange for a bottle of whiskey.

I'd lean more towards an unscrupulous UL employee than somebody at batteriser faking the whole thing. Maybe somebody at Batteroo has a friend who knows somebody at UL who...

Lack of dates/signatures though? There's no way that happened legitimately. UL's entire business is based around record keeping and accountability.

[Fungus]

I just got a reply from UL:

Thank you for taking the time to contact the UL Market Surveillance Department.  We appreciate your concern and assistance.

We are working with Batteriser to clarify the information being posted.

[firewalker]

Automated reply?

Alexander.

[Fungus]

Automated reply?

It does say "We are working with Batteriser..." so it's not a robot reply.

[firewalker]

Not, a robot. A "stock reply", would be a better use of words. I believe another user got the exact same reply.

Alexander.

[Godzil]

RESULTS
Their [was] [was not] the presence of visible smoke and grease-laden
air from the appliance during testing.

but I mean, c'mon...getting the COMPANY name wrong?  That's just lame.

There is NO WAY this UL thing is real.  It is a complete fabrication.  Does anyone really believe that UL supplied Batteroo (or is it Batteriser, Inc. now?) with just page 2, and then it took a week or so to supply the cover letter and blank page?  No, if this was real from the start, the full 3 page "report" would have been provided and Batteroo would have access to it and could have uploaded the entire PDF right from the start.  Sorry, the  is off the chart on this one.

I don't agree with that, if it was a fabrication this error wouldn't be there, it's just show how the UL care about this test and wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure this document is legitimate in the way it really come from the UL, the first and maybe the last page are from UL, the second is from the test document from batteroo nothing more. This is not a real test, batteroo have just paid to get the first page, but didn't take the full service that mean signed report, so this is just basically crap and a "public notary" work like someone explain on this thread, nothing more.

And if it was fabricated, why all the clauses about not using the UL name for marketing purpose, that wouldn't make any sense.

[lpickup]

RESULTS
Their [was] [was not] the presence of visible smoke and grease-laden
air from the appliance during testing.

but I mean, c'mon...getting the COMPANY name wrong?  That's just lame.

There is NO WAY this UL thing is real.  It is a complete fabrication.  Does anyone really believe that UL supplied Batteroo (or is it Batteriser, Inc. now?) with just page 2, and then it took a week or so to supply the cover letter and blank page?  No, if this was real from the start, the full 3 page "report" would have been provided and Batteroo would have access to it and could have uploaded the entire PDF right from the start.  Sorry, the  is off the chart on this one.

I don't agree with that, if it was a fabrication this error wouldn't be there, it's just show how the UL care about this test and wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible.

Let me clarify:  the "their" vs "there" error I quoted came from a legitimate UL report that someone posted above.  I only used that example to illustrate that even in the legitimate reports, typos exist.  The reason I pointed that out was because people were focusing in on the typos on page 2 as evidence that the report was fake (e.g. the "batter" holder).  I don't think typos alone raise the document into the "unbelievable" category, so that was the point I was trying to make.

Why all the legal clauses about not using the UL name, etc?  Again, I think that Batteriser Fan Page simply grabbed an actual UL report and used it as-is for his own report.  He probably didn't read the actual text to determine that Batteroo had already violated the rules, but even if he did, what can he do about it?  He's got to keep it as intact as possible to avoid it coming off looking like a complete forgery.

So okay, several posters have subsequently said that the project # appears legit and tied to a company named "Batteriser, Inc."  So, perhaps they did actually open a project with UL, but I still maintain that this is not an official report to come out of that project.

[Godzil]

If the batteriser fan (and as the document is on the IGG and baterro website it has nothing to do with a "fan" fabrication.

No I still think that this has been done by a real UL lab that didn't really care about that and make this report by an intern telling him to do this quick and dirty.


Edit:

By the way, is that me or the LinkedIn account for the Mitchell Nishi is strange?
No mention about Bateroo, and the photo apart from the background look suspiciously the same as the one on the batteroo website

vs

Apart from some slight color changes, he is in the exact same position, eye closed the same way etc...

Really suspicious

[drws]

UL does say all the test data is in the attached report...
Page 3 is all the data that UL found supporting their claims! 

[dexters_lab]

And if it was fabricated, why all the clauses about not using the UL name for marketing purpose, that wouldn't make any sense.

to be fair, it does not say they cant use it for marketing, it says:

The issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classification or Recognition by UL LLC and does not authorize the use of UL Listing, Classification or Recognition Marks or any other reference to UL LLC. on the product or system. 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.

so they cant put a UL logo on the product

but they can use it on packaging & marketing because they probably have written permission to do so

its not that hard to figure out

[Fungus]

Apart from some slight color changes, he is in the exact same position, eye closed the same way etc...

Really suspicious

Photoshop...all the batterizer photos have the same green background photoshopped in.

Notice that there's no photos of actual Batteriser offices, Batteriser workshop, etc. in any of their websites or videos.

[firewalker]

The photo is not suspicious. Maybe they asked him for a photo and he provided a stock one this purpose.

Alexander.

[Fungus]

The photo is not suspicious. Maybe they asked him for a photo and he provided a stock one this purpose.

Then why change the bacground?

To match the other photos on the web site.

[LabSpokane]

Could we call a halt to the NCIS investigation?  This is turning about as batty as the accusation of Dave being in the employ of BIG BATTERY.

[jancumps]

Could we call a halt to the NCIS investigation?  This is turning about as batty as the accusation of Dave being in the employ of BIG BATTERY.

Yes, good idea. Back to the electronics.

[pesshau]

It's still there as I write this: "UL, one of the oldest and most prestigious Labs, has performed independent Performance testing of a Garmin Golf GPS with and without Batteriser showing approx. 600% life extension"

For the record:

I just thought I'd mention that there are snapshots of the Batteriser.com front page stored with the Wayback Machine. I'm getting an error message now when trying to store their latest front page, but there is a snapshot from 12 September:

http://web.archive.org/web/20150912005058/http://batteriser.com/

It's nice to have an unbiased source for future reference.