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

[samgab]

I had it set to Alkaline and I never saw the brightness message even after the four hours, but since I have the servo hit the screen right where that "ok" button is (intentionally), I never saw it.  It didn't appear to have dimmed yet, however.  When testing with my bench power supply it dimmed at 1.3v per cell, and when I stopped last night, it was at 1.275v per cell, so I'm not sure if perhaps it just hadn't triggered the warning yet or not, but the message matches the one on their video (which you can somewhat read if you pause it at the right time) when it does appear.  I just got a fresh pair started and since it's early and I don't work tomorrow, this test will go until the GPS shuts itself off.  (and I installed an older version of the Agilent DMM software that doesn't have a time limit so I shouldn't have to hit start every hour this time.  Will post video/results when I'm done so people can see how BS their marketing videos really are.

Thanks heaps for all your testing. Would it be possible to take a clear photo of that message that comes up about the Alaline batteries, so we know verbatim what it is actually saying there. I have the gist of it, but I'd like to see exactly what the message is. Cheers! EDIT: Don't worry about that, I found the post in here where the message is quoted verbatim. Never mind!

To everyone:
I recommend having a good look at this chap HKJ's website here:
http://lygte-info.dk/info/batteryEnergyAtLowVoltage%20UK.html

He does excellent testing of flashlights, chargers, DMMs, and cells (Alkaline, NiMH, and Li-ion).
The page I linked is where he checks how much energy really is left in Alkaline cells (He uses Duracell Plus Power), when under various constant power loads as the voltage decreases. The results are very interesting. I like all of HKJ's tests. He's very thorough, and seems to use proper scientific method. He's a member of flashlight forums like CPF, but I'm not sure if he's around on this forum. I hope he chimes in though if he is on this forum!
Anyway, I hope he doesn't mind, but I'll show a couple of his result charts and tables below, but I really recommend checking the full website article linked above.




And the overall results of testing:

[5ky]

They just sent a "new announcement" on IGG. 

Hey Dave, Batteriser just tweeted this picture today stating that UL did their GPS test.  You should retweet their tweet and tag UL's official twitter channel asking if they really tested their product or not. 

https://twitter.com/GoBatteriser/status/639965473510064130

[edy]

Assuming this UL test is not a complete fabrication, there must be some quirk in the design of this Garmin product which occurs when the back light is continuously activated. Some kind of voltage sense algorithm which shuts down the unit when back light is always on at a high cutoff, whereas the Batterisers trick the Garmin algorithms. If these claims are true, I believe it is specifically valid only on certain devices. If the firmware on the Garmin was improved, it could simply refuse to turn on the back light when tapped (or have a very short "on" time) below a certain voltage, or warn the user, to make it last longer in real world situations (who taps on a Garmin repeatedly?). Something very odd going on here.

[Fungus]

They just sent a "new announcement" on IGG. 

Hey Dave, Batteriser just tweeted this picture today stating that UL did their GPS test.  You should retweet their tweet and tag UL's official twitter channel asking if they really tested their product or not. 

Why on earth would UL be running Batteriser's GPS test? They're a certification compliance company, not a product functionality tester. What internationally recognised standard/certification is Batteriser's GPS test complying with?

Would they really lie and use UL's name/log  like that? UL could destroy them. Very confused. 

[Fungus]

Assuming this UL test is not a complete fabrication, there must be some quirk in the design of this Garmin product which occurs when the back light is continuously activated.

Agreed. There must be some reason they're obsessed with that GPS and why they built that screen-poking device.

[amyk]

That does not look like any of the UL certification reports I've seen before... and more importantly, neither Batteroo nor Batteriser show up in UL's database.

[Fungus]

I was thinking about this last night... possibly in my sleep....

If a device NEEDS, 1.1volts per cell, or 2.2volts total for something using two AA cells in series, then logically, if there was energy below the 1.1volt per cell cutoff, then wouldn't the manufacturer design the device to run off three AA (or AAA) cells in series, so the 2.2volt cut off occurs at 0.75volts per cell...

Sometimes there's a size requirement so you're not allowed to do that.

But in that case you'd probably build a DC booster into it. It's two square centimeters of PCB and 50 cents extra (maybe cheaper in big quantities).

[LabSpokane]

UL does indeed test the claims of device manufacturers.  It is not what they are normally known for, but it is a service UL provides.

With respect to this posting on Batteriser's site, this appears to be a test description that Batteroo provided to UL.  Worst of all, the test is specifying this strange test fixture where the batteries are placed in the external battery box, while the GPS is attached to the fixture with the native battery compartment inaccessible.  This test fixture seems to be strangely necessary to produce result Batteroo is reporting. 

When these GPS devices are tested doing the thunderingly obvious, placing the batteries into the device's battery compartment and measuring the voltage at the device battery terminals, a completely different result is obtained. 

Lastly, this "report" excerpt appears to be Photoshopped.  The UL logo looks like it was copied off somewhere else, the white background is different that the white background of this "report."  If this really was excerpted from the real report, the entire white background would have the same tint. 

Oh, and by the way Bob, you spelled "battery" wrong.   I'm pretty certain the UL uses spell check.

[edy]

Not sure but would the report or any evidence of it appear when searched on this site:

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/cgifind/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.html

[5ky]

Ha, I didn't even notice the spelling error.  That's hilarious.

I have my test setup nearly identical to theirs (even measuring the voltage at the external battery box) and it's still going as we speak and it's at 5 hr 30 min and still at 2.46v under load. (when I tested with bench supply, the unit shut off at 2.1v so we still have another hour or two to go) 

I'm doubting that was really tested by UL.  Perhaps UL tested for something else and batteriser is doing what they do best and using smoke and mirrors tactics to associate UL's testing with their GPS findings to convince people they're legit results.

[samgab]

They continue to dig their hole deeper and deeper... Wrongness on so many levels boggles the mind.

[Nerull]

I've submitted a product report to UL, we'll see if they believe this is a valid use of their mark.

[Fungus]

1.5V @ 150mA is 225mW of power.

I think the average current draw is closer to 135 mA, the with of the spikes is not to scale here so you cannot really tell. But 135mA gives a power closer to 200mW per cell. And with that they should get some 13 hours, since they go down to 0.5V cell voltage.
And then you get closer to 77% effecient.

You may be right. That graph doesn't show enough detail to be sure.

I'm a bit surprised it's that high with such a small inductor and claims that it can provide "as much current as the battery can supply". High current capability normally sacrifices efficiency at lower currents.

But, whatever... I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The reason they're using the GPS might be because it's at the sweet spot on the performance curve.

Let's be generous and call it 80%.

Throwing away 20% of the battery's energy inside the Batteriser isn't good for their claims of 'extended battery life'.

[Fungus]

Ha, I didn't even notice the spelling error.  That's hilarious.

They used a batter holder in the test?

Maybe the cutout logo in the batteriser can be used to filter the lumps out of the batter before they put it on their fish.

[Fungus]

Not sure but would the report or any evidence of it appear when searched on this site:

Yes. That's the entire point of UL certification - that you can verify the "UL" stamp on the back of your device.

OTOH this is some sort of weird certification so who knows?

[Nerull]

Read closely and you'll see the very good reason they're stuck on this particular device. They're testing to either shutdown OR a battery message pops up on screen. We know this particular GPS pops up a battery warning when its barely used any battery at all, and continues to function for many hours afterward. A boost converter wouldn't make the device run any longer, but it WOULD prevent the battery message.

Its yet more slight of hand.

[Fungus]

Lastly, this "report" excerpt appears to be Photoshopped.  The UL logo looks like it was copied off somewhere else, the white background is different that the white background of this "report."  If this really was excerpted from the real report, the entire white background would have the same tint. 

Oh, and by the way Bob, you spelled "battery" wrong.   I'm pretty certain the UL uses spell check.

They might have just done that until the UL paperwork arrives in the post.

[5ky]

Ha, I didn't even notice the spelling error.  That's hilarious.

They used a batter holder in the test?

Maybe the cutout logo in the batteriser can be used to filter the lumps out of the batter before they put it on their fish.

Yup.  Watch the vid, it's only two minutes long:

[Fungus]

Ha, I didn't even notice the spelling error.  That's hilarious.

They used a batter holder in the test?

Maybe the cutout logo in the batteriser can be used to filter the lumps out of the batter before they put it on their fish.

Yup.  Watch the vid, it's only two minutes long:

Didn't see any batter holders in there...

[samgab]

All of these dishonest and shady business practices notwithstanding:

They say that the reason or motivation for doing this is because they care about the environment (not because they want to make bucketloads of cash).

If that's so, and they care about the environment and not money, they SHOULD be promoting the use of NiMH cells and not Alkaline primaries.
Even if everyone got slightly more battery life out of their Alkaline cells, they're still using single use Alkaline cells, and then throwing them away.
It doesn't solve the problem, even if their pie in the sky claims were true.

I almost exclusively use rechargable batteries (built-in rechargeables, 18650's or eneloops) in anything that runs on batteries.
So yes, those still get thrown away eventually, but only after being reused usually hundreds of times.
THAT's better for the environment than using single shot Alkalines, but of course, that's not giving anyone a product that will make my bank account fat. Except Panasonic I suppose.

Maybe the Bobby/Frankie team should have designed a more energy efficient AA NiMH charger... Oh but that way they couldn't make lots of quick money from average non-electronics-minded people.

[5ky]

Ha, I didn't even notice the spelling error.  That's hilarious.

They used a batter holder in the test?

Maybe the cutout logo in the batteriser can be used to filter the lumps out of the batter before they put it on their fish.

Yup.  Watch the vid, it's only two minutes long:

Didn't see any batter holders in there...

Touché.  I need to learn to read more carefully 

[Fungus]

When these GPS devices are tested doing the thunderingly obvious

Batteroo have never done the thunderingly obvious in any of their tests. What are they hiding? The only answer is that Batteriser will give shorter battery lifetimes on nearly everything.

ie. They were relying on cognitive dissonance in the buyers until the pesky engineers turned up and started asking questions.

[LabSpokane]

Lastly, this "report" excerpt appears to be Photoshopped.  The UL logo looks like it was copied off somewhere else, the white background is different that the white background of this "report."  If this really was excerpted from the real report, the entire white background would have the same tint. 

Oh, and by the way Bob, you spelled "battery" wrong.   I'm pretty certain the UL uses spell check.

They might have just done that until the UL paperwork arrives in the post.

Copying the UL logo on to a document that is not generated by UL, could constitute both trademark infringement and fraud.  Batteroo needs to provide this report post-haste, in full, and unredacted.  If the report is complete on UL's side, Batteroo should surely have the PDF for it in-hand.  Electronic delivery is a normal delivery method, with hard-copies for record-keeping following in the mail.

[Wytnucls]

With their best flawed 'longevity test', they only mustered a 6x extension. Where does that 8x battery life extension statement come from, if not from thin air? And these people are qualified engineers? 
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/batteriser-extend-battery-life-by-up-to-8x#/story

'UL, one of the oldest and most presitigious independent Labs' Don't they have spell check software at Batteroo?

[Wytnucls]

It takes 3 to 4 months, at the earliest, to obtain test results at UL labs, according to their site.