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

[timofonic]

Pretty sure there is enough information out there for someone to at least come up with their own version of it.

Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken. Or would you copy a non working circuit for profit? I forgot, audiophoolery is working   [emoji14]alm:

Let's make a IGG campaign! I

[Kalvin]

Pretty sure there is enough information out there for someone to at least come up with their own version of it.

Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken. Or would you copy a non working circuit for profit? I forgot, audiophoolery is working   [emoji14]alm:

Let's make a IGG campaign! I

Let's make a monkey which will run 800% longer with the Batteriser, and then start selling those monkeys to all Batteriser buyers! $$$$$

[timofonic]

Pretty sure there is enough information out there for someone to at least come up with their own version of it.

Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken. Or would you copy a non working circuit for profit? I forgot, audiophoolery is working   [emoji14]alm:

Let's make a IGG campaign! I

Let's make a monkey which will run 800% longer with the Batteriser, and then start selling those monkeys to all Batteriser buyers! $$$$$

This gives a double sense meaning to the Monkey Business term!

[drussell]

I'm pretty shocked that no Chinese knockoffs of this have appeared on ebay or Alibaba yet

Don't worry to much about that, they will be there

Which one will deliver first? Batteriser or the Chinese knockoffs?

...

Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken.

Precisely...  Why would you bother to clone a product which cannot work, a product where the very concept itself is fundamentally flawed?

The Chinese clone makers may be many things but they are rarely stupid. 

Though, as I've said before, I suppose a properly executed one designed to boost rechargeables to 1.5v volts but not over-discharge them could potentially be a useful product but only in a small number of devices.

[Godzil]

The Chinese clone makers may be many things but they are rarely stupid. 

There are a large number of counter example about that, the cloning industry is more about cloning things that is popular than cloning thing "that work" so if they found the batteratruc popular, they will clone it working or not.

[Fungus]

I'm surprised this one hasn't been deleted yet:

They already got the money, what difference does it make?

[crispy_tofu]

I'm pretty shocked that no Chinese knockoffs of this have appeared on ebay or Alibaba yet

You can't copy something not existing yet 

I beg to differ. 

[tekbasse]

But what happens when a device needs a certain current to function? They are basically saying the Batteriser acts like a "power supply" voltage source in that it keeps a constant minimal voltage while somehow being able to supply whatever variation in current is demanded by the product without any dip in voltage.  Assuming it could magically isolate the device and battery so that current draws don't affect battery voltage, where is the extra "energy" coming from?
The Batteriser is tiny, where is it storing a current source that it can release at will whenever the device demands it?

Bingo.
You canna change the laws of physics captain.

What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?

I watched the debunk video and appreciate it's spirit; Yet, I didn't see where the limits of using a variable DC supply to model battery life performance were addressed etc.

With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.

For example, the debunk video concludes that most devices can run rechargeable batteries at 1.2V; Local experience is different. I see consumers tending to buy things requiring alkaline batteries that quit at 1.2V; Rechargeables don't work well with them. For example, I might get 10 minutes using rechargeables with Maglite LED flashlights or digital equipment such as cameras.

Note: Newer Maglite LED models may not be a good example. They seem to have a joule thief built into system, so the 1.2V limit may not exist anymore --I don't have D rechargeables handy to confirm; Based on my DMM readings of recycling used batteries, newer Maglites seem to get more energy out of batteries than before; The used batteries I now collect have less capacity.

[samgab]

But what happens when a device needs a certain current to function? They are basically saying the Batteriser acts like a "power supply" voltage source in that it keeps a constant minimal voltage while somehow being able to supply whatever variation in current is demanded by the product without any dip in voltage.  Assuming it could magically isolate the device and battery so that current draws don't affect battery voltage, where is the extra "energy" coming from?
The Batteriser is tiny, where is it storing a current source that it can release at will whenever the device demands it?

Bingo.
You canna change the laws of physics captain.

What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?

I watched the debunk video and appreciate it's spirit; Yet, I didn't see where the limits of using a variable DC supply to model battery life performance were addressed etc.

With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.

For example, the debunk video concludes that most devices can run rechargeable batteries at 1.2V; Local experience is different. I see consumers tending to buy things requiring alkaline batteries that quit at 1.2V; Rechargeables don't work well with them. For example, I might get 10 minutes using rechargeables with Maglite LED flashlights or digital equipment such as cameras.

Note: Newer Maglite LED models may not be a good example. They seem to have a joule thief built into system, so the 1.2V limit may not exist anymore --I don't have D rechargeables handy to confirm; Based on my DMM readings of recycling used batteries, newer Maglites seem to get more energy out of batteries than before; The used batteries I now collect have less capacity.

  This has all been thoroughly addressed and re-addressed throughout this thread. Also... "a novel capacitor"...? Seriously? 

[adprom]

What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?

But it's not....

I watched the debunk video and appreciate it's spirit; Yet, I didn't see where the limits of using a variable DC supply to model battery life performance were addressed etc.

With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.

I don't know what is ambiguous abot them stating 80% that the energy of a battery is unused or 800% more life which clearly refers to any single application. Dave has explained numerous times how using a benchtop power supply for closed circuit voltage is correct. Feel free to cite what problems there are in using a benchtop power supply to determine cutoff voltage.

For example, the debunk video concludes that most devices can run rechargeable batteries at 1.2V; Local experience is different. I see consumers tending to buy things requiring alkaline batteries that quit at 1.2V; Rechargeables don't work well with them. For example, I might get 10 minutes using rechargeables with Maglite LED flashlights or digital equipment such as cameras.

Nearly any decently designed device has a boost converter in in it. No well designed digital camera works poorly with rechargeable batteries. It has been years since I have had a device that has a particularly high cut off voltage. I think the last, was a really old cordless mouse.

Note: Newer Maglite LED models may not be a good example. They seem to have a joule thief built into system, so the 1.2V limit may not exist anymore --I don't have D rechargeables handy to confirm; Based on my DMM readings of recycling used batteries, newer Maglites seem to get more energy out of batteries than before; The used batteries I now collect have less capacity.

I was going to suggest, for an LED light to not have a boost converter in it would be a pretty poor design.

[amyk]

I'm pretty shocked that no Chinese knockoffs of this have appeared on ebay or Alibaba yet

Don't worry to much about that, they will be there

Which one will deliver first? Batteriser or the Chinese knockoffs?

...

Some forum members did exactly this already. The point is that the concept is broken.

Precisely...  Why would you bother to clone a product which cannot work, a product where the very concept itself is fundamentally flawed?

The Chinese clone makers may be many things but they are rarely stupid. 

Though, as I've said before, I suppose a properly executed one designed to boost rechargeables to 1.5v volts but not over-discharge them could potentially be a useful product but only in a small number of devices.

Interestingly enough the Chinese have come up with AA batteries that contain a lithium cell and minature buck converter:

http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Kentli%20AA%202800mWh%20(Blue)%20UK.html
http://www.amazon.com/TBOO-Rechargeable-Battery-Lithium-1000mAh/dp/B00YOSBH2Y

[tekbasse]

What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?

But it's not....

AFAICT, that's hearsay until confirmed.

I don't know what is ambiguous abot them stating 80% that the energy of a battery is unused or 800% more life which clearly refers to any single application. Dave has explained numerous times how using a benchtop power supply for closed circuit voltage is correct. Feel free to cite what problems there are in using a benchtop power supply to determine cutoff voltage.

For purposes of a battery powered device, a benchtop power supply supplies essentially limitless current. Batteries have performance limits on their current output. Exceeding specs degrade overall life capacity.

"..the amount of current we can really draw (the power capability) from a battery is often limited.." from https://learn.adafruit.com/all-about-batteries/power-capacity-and-power-capability

Nearly any decently designed device has a boost converter in in it. No well designed digital camera works poorly with rechargeable batteries. It has been years since I have had a device that has a particularly high cut off voltage. I think the last, was a really old cordless mouse.

You're a careful buyer. Least cost economics tend to favor poor choices.

I was going to suggest, for an LED light to not have a boost converter in it would be a pretty poor design.

Sadly, many consumer electronics products are not designed for optimal battery performance.

[EEVblog]

What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?

But it's not....

AFAICT, that's hearsay until confirmed.

It is confirmed, time and time again, by Batteroo in all their marketing, interviews, patents, etc.
It is a simply a DC-DC boost converter.

I don't know what is ambiguous abot them stating 80% that the energy of a battery is unused or 800% more life which clearly refers to any single application. Dave has explained numerous times how using a benchtop power supply for closed circuit voltage is correct. Feel free to cite what problems there are in using a benchtop power supply to determine cutoff voltage.

For purposes of a battery powered device, a benchtop power supply supplies essentially limitless current. Batteries have performance limits on their current output.

Technically correct. Using a PSU to simulate a battery is not in theory correct, but it's so close for the way most modern practical products are designed and implemented (DC-DC converters, copious decoupling etc, the way the low batt detection works etc), that it's an industry standard technique for doing so. Unless of course you have some specific niche product application that it really does make a difference.
And even when not true strictly true, using a PSU gets you a pretty good ballpark estimate.
But the average product Batteroo are talking about they are equivalent techniques.

Sadly, many consumer electronics products are not designed for optimal battery performance.

Yes, but the majority are designed to get at least decent performance with their intended batteries.
Go out and test products like I did and you'll find that's the case.
Batteroo have had 5 years to work on this, have millions of dollars on the line, and they can't even produce a list of products that are poorly designed like you mention.
Their big test with the GPS has been thoroughly proven to have been incorrectly implemented and/or deliberately deceiving.

[Fungus]

What if the circuit's shell is a novel capacitor?

I watched the debunk video and appreciate it's spirit; Yet, I didn't see where the limits of using a variable DC supply to model battery life performance were addressed etc.

With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.

For example, the debunk video concludes that most devices can run rechargeable batteries at 1.2V; Local experience is different. I see consumers tending to buy things requiring alkaline batteries that quit at 1.2V; Rechargeables don't work well with them. For example, I might get 10 minutes using rechargeables with Maglite LED flashlights or digital equipment such as cameras.

Note: Newer Maglite LED models may not be a good example. They seem to have a joule thief built into system, so the 1.2V limit may not exist anymore --I don't have D rechargeables handy to confirm; Based on my DMM readings of recycling used batteries, newer Maglites seem to get more energy out of batteries than before; The used batteries I now collect have less capacity.

Is this a troll? 

[EEVblog]

Is this a troll? 

tekbasse is a free energy/overunity aficionado.

[tekbasse]

Is this a troll? 

tekbasse is a free energy/overunity aficionado.

LOL, got to love labels. I guess I am if it includes Mill's GUT-CP http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/theory/ , but then most any theory that supports electrons moving essentially perpetually ie preventing atoms from imploding is worth consideration --including quantum mechanics. ;-)

[crispy_tofu]

Is this a troll? 

You can make your own conclusion... link

[Fungus]

Is this a troll? 

You can make your own conclusion... link

Conclusion: "Nutcase".

(Which he'll somehow give a positive spin - young maverick, living on the edge, refusing to accept the theories of 'classical engineering'... despite the entire observable universe obeying the laws of thermodynamics all around him  )

[mikerj]

With a battery, a high current load drops voltage; Perhaps the 800% refers to more thoughtful cases of switching a "dead" battery from a high-power heavy-load device that isn't using a Batteriser, to a minimal load device using the Batteriser.

But you could achieve the same result without a batteriser.  A cell that is unable to power a high current device may still power a low current device for a long time.

joule thief

No it doesn't integrate a joule thief, it has a regulated boost converter.  A joule thief is specific circuit for stepping up the voltage from a single cell to light an LED, and is a crude, unregulated and fairly inefficient design whose primary advantage is minimal component count and low cost.

LOL, got to love labels.

If the label fits...  And this this case it appears to be a bespoke, Savile Row made label.

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

It is confirmed, time and time again, by Batteroo in all their marketing, interviews, patents, etc.
It is a simply a DC-DC boost converter.

Hmmm patents....Looks like they don't have any granted in the US/EU. The patent examiner examining their US application found possible prior (now active) art about a month ago [US2010/0136374 - assigned to Samsung as US9147864 B2 (examiner believes obvious modification in view of US6118248 and US4702975)]. So to me it appears that even if they had everything ready to go with UL approval and in boxes, they can't sanely ship units in the US/EU until the patent clears, unless they want to risk possible infringement (and actually I think they may be at risk even if they don't ship due to presales). From what I can tell, Batteroos patent claims are to be rejected unless Batteroo has a good argument, Batteroos arguments were sent about a week and a half ago... so will see

USPTO public PAIR system  http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Select "application number" and enter "14/542313"
Click "image file wrapper" tab

[timofonic]

It is confirmed, time and time again, by Batteroo in all their marketing, interviews, patents, etc.
It is a simply a DC-DC boost converter.

Hmmm patents....Looks like they don't have any granted in the US/EU. The patent examiner examining their US application found possible prior (now active) art about a month ago [US2010/0136374 - assigned to Samsung as US9147864 B2 (examiner believes obvious modification in view of US6118248 and US4702975)]. So to me it appears that even if they had everything ready to go with UL approval and in boxes, they can't sanely ship units in the US/EU until the patent clears, unless they want to risk possible infringement (and actually I think they may be at risk even if they don't ship due to presales). From what I can tell, Batteroos patent claims are to be rejected unless Batteroo has a good argument, Batteroos arguments were sent about a week and a half ago... so will see

USPTO public PAIR system  http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Select "application number" and enter "14/542313"
Click "image file wrapper" tab

I don't understand legalese but it sounds fun! Did anybody contact Samsung?

[EEVblog]

Hmmm patents....Looks like they don't have any granted in the US/EU. The patent examiner examining their US application found possible prior (now active) art about a month ago [US2010/0136374 - assigned to Samsung as US9147864 B2 (examiner believes obvious modification in view of US6118248 and US4702975)]. So to me it appears that even if they had everything ready to go with UL approval and in boxes, they can't sanely ship units in the US/EU until the patent clears, unless they want to risk possible infringement (and actually I think they may be at risk even if they don't ship due to presales). From what I can tell, Batteroos patent claims are to be rejected unless Batteroo has a good argument, Batteroos arguments were sent about a week and a half ago... so will see
USPTO public PAIR system  http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Select "application number" and enter "14/542313"
Click "image file wrapper" tab

They might be in trouble with potentially having their patent application rejected, but does mean they are infringing the other patents?
Wouldn't it just mean that their variation is simply not novel enough to warrant granting a new patent?
The discussion seem quite extensive (see attached).

[helius]

For a patent to be valid, it must claim a technique that is a non-obvious improvement on the prior art. This is separate from infringement, which is when you use a patented technique without a right to. If the prior art is still in force, your patented improvement may be in one of four cases: valid, and non-infringing; valid, and infringing; not valid, and non-infringing; not valid, and infringing. Just because your improvement is valid, if making it falls under the claims of a prior valid patent, then you need to license that patent. One way is to cross-license with the other owner. Another approach would be buying legally licensed products and modifying them according to your improvement.

[Howardlong]

Well there's something satisfying in that an expert in the field of patent application, with more patents than there are days in the year, can have their project held up by a possible patent infringement.

I doubt that's the only reason for the delay though.

[EEVblog]

I doubt that's the only reason for the delay though.

I doubt it's a reason for any delay.