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

[janekm]

What are FCC emission regulations? Roohparvar says the butteriser isn't subject to those regulations

Where does he say that?

Could be plausible actually:

(h) Digital devices in which both the highest frequency generated and the highest frequency used are less than 1.705 MHz and which do not operate from the AC power lines or contain provisions for operation while connected to the AC power lines. Digital devices that include, or make provision for the use of, battery eliminators, AC adapters or battery chargers which permit operation while charging or that connect to the AC power lines indirectly, obtaining their power through another device which is connected to the AC power lines, do not fall under this exemption.

http://www.radiomet.com/documents/fcc_guide.pdf

[AmmoJammo]

What are FCC emission regulations? Roohparvar says the butteriser isn't subject to those regulations

Where does he say that?

On the indiegogo campaign. Someone asked about it.

[lpickup]

What are FCC emission regulations? Roohparvar says the butteriser isn't subject to those regulations

Where does he say that?

On the indiegogo campaign. Someone asked about it.

Yep, it's right at the top of the comments as we speak:

Bob Roohparvar
11 hours ago
@Eric McFall
Thanks Eric,
our device is not subject to FCC emission regulation.


Eric McFall
13 hours ago
Mr. Roohparvar: Obviously quite a few of these Batterisers will be built and delivered. I believe it’s a fair statement that enough will be sold in the US to be subject to FCC emission regulations. This will not be trivial since at least some form of high frequency magnetics will be involved in the boost converter. What compliance pre-testing has been done to assure the Batteriser will pass FCC requirements for a consumer device before mass production can begin?

[bitwelder]

Yes, the detective story is in the middle of this thread somewhere.

We guessed it was this guy: https://instagram.com/exellentc/  https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopheruken

In their last video they actually called him "Chris" so I guess that makes it definitive.

A *computer* engineer (according to LinkedIn)? 
Interestingly, Dr. Bob appeared in the list of 'People also viewed' LinkedIn sidebar.

[firewalker]

What are FCC emission regulations? Roohparvar says the butteriser isn't subject to those regulations

Where does he say that?

Alexander.

[Godzil]

I don't know, but Mr Uken project does not seems related with the butter riser:

Senior Project
Biofeedback Mobility Group designed the Brainfingers Wheelchair Interface (BWI) for our client Dr. Bowen of California State University at East Bay that hopes to be one possible solution for increasing mobility. It is a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) controlled electric wheelchair. In this setup the Brainfingers BCI monitors brainwave signals and uses them to control a computer that is interfaced with the motor controllers on a Quickie P100 electric wheelchair.

[FrankBuss]

What are FCC emission regulations? Roohparvar says the butteriser isn't subject to those regulations

Where does he say that?

Could be plausible actually:

(h) Digital devices in which both the highest frequency generated and the highest frequency used are less than 1.705 MHz and which do not operate from the AC power lines or contain provisions for operation while connected to the AC power lines. Digital devices that include, or make provision for the use of, battery eliminators, AC adapters or battery chargers which permit operation while charging or that connect to the AC power lines indirectly, obtaining their power through another device which is connected to the AC power lines, do not fall under this exemption.

http://www.radiomet.com/documents/fcc_guide.pdf

But it says also:

The operator of the exempted device shall be required to stop operating the device upon a finding by the Commission or its representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.

A boost converter used with a device which needs some amps can cause a lot of harmful interference, especially if it is high efficient, because of the fast rise/slow times.

[Galenbo]

So after all this time and effort, they still haven't shown a single device that gives the x8 life they claim in the logo. Why?

After I said the device still does not exist, you claimed some days ago you know
some "serious" journalists that "confirmed" that the device exists AND "works"
Or did I misunderstand that?

The needed miniaturisation of the dc converter (let's assume here it's possible) requires mass production.
Before that moment, there is no chip.
Before that moment, there is no device.

They can proove or demonstrate their claims with a breadboard or closed box prototype, but they don't.
So far, so good. Their right to no demonstrate it.

But they DID show the device?

[LabSpokane]

From the FCC:

Digital devices that do not generate or use frequencies above
1.705 MHz and that do not operate while connected to the AC power
lines, such as certain electronic calculators. Digital devices that
include, or make provision for the use of, battery eliminators, AC
adapters or battery chargers that permit operation while charging or
that connect to the AC power lines indirectly, obtaining their power
through another device that is connected to the AC power lines, do
not fall under this exemption.
Section 15.103(h)
Digital devices that are exempt from the technical standards in Part 15 are still not
permitted to cause harmful interference to any authorized radio communications.
Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that the manufacturer of an exempt digital
device endeavor to have the device meet the technical standards anyhow.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf

So, in addition to all the other risk, Batteroo has decided to add the risk of having sales be prohibited by the FCC if their device is shown to be an interferer after it hits the marketplace. 

[Galenbo]

So, in addition to all the other risk, Batteroo has decided to add the risk of having sales be prohibited by the FCC if their device is shown to be an interferer after it hits the marketplace.

There is an interferiser in the "pipeline", patents are on the way, it will cost 2.5 dollar and reduces the interferences by 800%.
Available in 4 different colors.

[Godzil]

@Galenbo: It is about the size of a D battery?

[McBryce]

Most household bins (trashcans) are metal and that's where most batterisers will end up (if they ever get produced). That should be enough shielding for the device.

McBryce.

[edy]

I am reading through the  "scientific" paper by Zinniker:

http://www2.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~rolfz/batak/ICBR2003_Zinniker.pdf

... and starting to realize how poor the methodology is. For example, the main premise of their measurement of "battery capacity" remaining is as follows (see pages 9 and 10):

The test setup is shown in Fig. 8. The Olympus C3040 Camera (courtesy of
Olympus Europe) is equiped with 4 AA-Batteries under test. Every 20
seconds, a foto with full flash power in VGA-Resolution (in order to have
enough capacity on the SM storage card) and display on is made (the
RM-1 IR-remote control is connected to a pulse generator).

As soon as the battery voltage drops under 4V, the camera shuts off and
the number of fotos taken can be determined. After a pause of 12 to 24
hours, the batteries are discharged with 120mA constant current to 0.9V
in order to find their remaining capacity. From this rest capacity, an
equivalent number of Fotos is estimated (measurements during the test
showed, that for one foto an average current of 690mA can be
estimated ). Results are shown in Fig. 9.
 

 


So basically they are measuring until the camera stops functioning well.... Likely an issue with the remaining voltage dropping due to need to supply a certain high current demanded by charging the flash. But then, they measure the remaining capacity of the battery by draining it through a VERY SMALL  (in comparison) current draw until they get to 0.9 V per cell to estimate the amount of capacity that was wasted in the battery. How is that arbitrarily decided? Really?

Not to mention the Olympus C3040 is a 14 year old digital camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc3040z

And the Zinniker paper itself is 12 years old.... Dated circa 2003. Choosing one device with crappy scientific method and extrapolating this to using Batteriser as some universal product unleashed on the public for a huge variety of devices in 2015.... that's just incompetence at the highest level. 

I'm not an electrical engineer, but isn't that a GROSS FLAW in the methodology of seeing what is actually remaining in a battery? And even so, wouldn't just adding a boost converter also be dependent on current draw required, even though the voltage increases, how are they simultaneously providing the necessary current supply?

I mean, I could show a battery drawing 10mA current and watching it last even longer before the voltage drops. Why not 50mA? Why not 100mA? Why not 200mA? Why not 500mA? Each one will have a different time until voltage drops to 0.9V per cell. And why 0.9 V per cell? So I believe the "remaining capacity" measurement is completely flawed. And that still doesn't answer the question of how you can simultaneously boost voltage and current at the same time. There is a trade-off between the two, that's why you get a voltage drop in the first place when you have higher current draw.   

[jancumps]

That may also be a real issue for the end user, having a noisy switch regulator plugged inside your device.
And in some cases you insert the battery inside the shielding. Nothing is going to stop the switch-mode noise.

Well...it's hidden inside a metal bracket on one side and has a close-fitting battery on the other. It might be self-shielding.

I'm sure Dave can test that for them when they send him his press evaluation kit.

It's not hidden inside the bracket. Their exploded view shows that pcb and components are sitting on top of the battery, not on the side between bracket and mantle.

[lpickup]

I am reading through the  "scientific" paper by Zinniker:

http://www2.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~rolfz/batak/ICBR2003_Zinniker.pdf

... and starting to realize how poor the methodology is. For example, the main premise of their measurement of "battery capacity" remaining is as follows (see pages 9 and 10):

<snip>

Well, it's even worse...the camera rig/experiment was not even Zinniker's.  He was just citing an earlier paper (from 2001) that did the camera experiment.  As I've mentioned earlier, not only is it just plain old, but this is an example of a camera from the very beginning of the consumer digital camera era.  I doubt they were doing much in the way of power management at that time so it's no surprise that it turns off early.  But even then, the data (which Batteroo happily points us to) shows that the majority of the batteries discarded in this 2001 era digital camera only had another 40-50% of capacity remaining...except for maybe the one battery on the far left of their plot, which likely is an el cheapo battery with an exceptionally high internal resistance.  But hey, that's probably good enough for marketing to call a "significant number".

Having said all that, Zinniker and the camera guy's approach to measuring battery capacity is LIGHT YEARS ahead of what Batteroo is doing in 2015, which consists mainly of measuring the open circuit voltage of the battery and whacking a Batteriser-equipped battery into a device with a battery meter that then reads 100% and calling it a win (well of course it's going to read 100% as the Batteriser is basically fooling the battery meter).

[Smokey]

...
Not to mention the Olympus C3040 is a 14 year old digital camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc3040z
...

This adds absolutely nothing to the present conversation... but... I had an Olympus C3040 back in the day.  It was a really good camera.  I just got around to getting rid of it recently.  That's it.  Sorry.

[Galenbo]

...
Not to mention the Olympus C3040 is a 14 year old digital camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc3040z
...

This adds absolutely nothing to the present conversation...

Maybe not for you personally, but for me, it does.
They try to defend their claim based on obsolete devices this time.

[LabSpokane]

What are FCC emission regulations? Roohparvar says the butteriser isn't subject to those regulations

Where does he say that?

Alexander.

And within ONE day, Dr. Roohparvar has already retracted his claim regarding FCC compliance.

Glad we could help, Bob! 

[Mr.B]

Backtrack...

[Davey_Jonez]

It is likely incidental emissions, just miss-stated the first time.
You guys think all of this is BS. Quite funny.

[EEVblog]

And within ONE day, Dr. Roohparvar has already retracted his claim regarding FCC compliance.
Glad we could help, Bob!

That's what technical forums are for! 

[EEVblog]

It is likely incidental emissions, just miss-stated the first time.

It read like a very definitive statement.
Going from no action to be taken to "our compliance team is looking into it".

You guys think all of this is BS. Quite funny.

The data shows it's mostly BS marketing, no opinion required.

[Godzil]

Dave: even if we now have a Phony you on the forum, you should just ignore hum I think, or should I say we should ignore him unless he broke some rules (something, that I fear will happen sonner than later)

[EEVblog]

Dave: even if we now have a Phony you on the forum, you should just ignore hum I think

No, lets see what Mr Davey_Jonez has to say.
Perhaps he'd like to explain how and why the Batteriser is as good as it claims.

[Godzil]

Dave: even if we now have a Phony you on the forum, you should just ignore hum I think

No, lets see what Mr Davey_Jonez has to say.
Perhaps he'd like to explain how and why the Batteriser is as good as it claims.

That's a good point, I can't object to that!