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

[SL4P]

I'm just impressed that a part-time lawyer has an electronics lab in his office.
Maybe he's was visiting Bob, or UL at the time.

[Brumby]

10 out of 10 for that part of the word play ... but somewhat of a fail on the latter part: "taps into the 80 percent of energy that is usually thrown away"

If I remember correctly, Dave's voltage tests on various bits of gear put the dropout level at around the 1.0V level - and when you look under the discharge curve (he scribbled on), the energy discarded is more like 8% than 80%.

The "usually gets thrown away" part is valid, because many people throw away batteries that haven't been full used. Not because the device didn't work any more, but because the device is no longer used or whatever. So he wormed his way around that one too.

McBryce.

In my experience, nearly all batteries that I toss are because the device stops working.  I could accept a classification of "rarely" or perhaps "sometimes" (at a push), but there's no way I could use the word "usually".

Admittedly there will be the odd occasion where a device is no longer used and you might remove the batteries to prevent damage from leaking and then dispose of them because their questionable state of charge, but I would put that on a frequency an order of magnitude or two below replacement of exhausted batteries.

I would think I am not unique in this.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi group,

I'm just impressed that a part-time lawyer has an electronics lab in his office.
Maybe he's was visiting Bob, or UL at the time.

I don't think the lawyer has a lab. There is a possibility that the lawyer's dad, who may be a professor of Astronomy and Physics at SJSU may have a lab. Where do you get the idea that the lawyer has a lab?

Remember you can still pre-order the Batteriser http://batteriser.com/ They are still showing shipping on the 31st of December 2015:



I strongly suggest that you read all the message in this thread before you order.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[SL4P]

a quote earlier in this thread lifted by wytnuckles
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg750496/#msg750496

'We tested the Batteriser sleeve in our lab and we confirmed that the Batteriser taps into the 80 percent of energy that is usually thrown away.' Dr Kiumars Parvin

[lpickup]

In my experience, nearly all batteries that I toss are because the device stops working.  I could accept a classification of "rarely" or perhaps "sometimes" (at a push), but there's no way I could use the word "usually".

Admittedly there will be the odd occasion where a device is no longer used and you might remove the batteries to prevent damage from leaking and then dispose of them because their questionable state of charge, but I would put that on a frequency an order of magnitude or two below replacement of exhausted batteries.

I would think I am not unique in this.

The Batteriser guys like to point to this paper:  http://www2.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~rolfz/batak/ICBR2003_Zinniker.pdf  as evidence that there is a significant amount of energy left in batteries that get thrown out.  While the paper is old (over 12 years old) and they have taken some liberties with the capacities of the discarded batteries, a surprising number of batteries were discarded that had significant remaining capacity left.  Of course the paper goes on to say that they suspect the batteries are being discarded for a variety of reasons, not all of which are that the product stopped working (e.g. people throw a relatively fresh set of batteries away to guarantee that they have a fresh set in their digital camera before heading off on that weekend trip--I used to do that myself frequently before I had a smartphone--my digital camera was notorious for eating through batteries and it was just easier to throw in a new set even though the old set may still have reasonable capacity).

The point being is that at the very least they can make this claim by pointing to this paper without having to stretch the truth too much (although technically they still have to stretch it to arrive at "usually" and "80 percent" in the same sentence, or at least redefine what they mean by 80%).  They just have to omit the facts that more recent products that would cause people to throw away good batteries either use rechargeables or are better designed.

Honestly that part of their argument is not what bothers me, at least not any more than most of the marketing rubbish that most companies put out, including reputable ones.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

a quote earlier in this thread lifted by wytnuckles
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-751-how-to-debunk-a-product-(the-batteriser)/msg750496/#msg750496

'We tested the Batteriser sleeve in our lab and we confirmed that the Batteriser taps into the 80 percent of energy that is usually thrown away.' Dr Kiumars Parvin

The lawyer is Pardees Parvin

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[SL4P]

hard to keep track of the bs!
my bad!  I'll have to start a map of all the players.

[Brumby]

The point being is that at the very least they can make this claim by pointing to this paper without having to stretch the truth too much (although technically they still have to stretch it to arrive at "usually" and "80 percent" in the same sentence, or at least redefine what they mean by 80%).  They just have to omit the facts that more recent products that would cause people to throw away good batteries either use rechargeables or are better designed.

I'll agree with the stretching part - just that I feel it's well and truly overstretched.


It just occurred to me - isn't stretching something you do before running?

[SeanB]

I tend to use batteries in the following way, or at least I did so before changinmg mostly to a rechargeable regime.

High current loads like a camera, till the camera shows low battery. Then those cells will go into a collection used for medium loads, like analogue wall clocks and remotes, where you use it till it is pretty much completely depleted. That way the cells that are not working any more in the remotes and clocks are pretty much no longer capable of delivering more than 10mA of current into any load, which means that they are pretty much depleted, but they still are capable of running a LCD display clock for a good few months, until the LCD is poor contrast and the cell is pretty much fully depleted. Then they go into the scrap metal pile for recycling.

[Simon]

I just use rechargeables and keep a spare freshly charged set to hand, that way I have at least one fresh set and all juice is used. I have become well known at work for walking around with a torch in each pocket and often get asked why I carry two, the answer is that when one goes dud i just use the other and charge it as soon as I can. Plus having two is handy no and then. The torch is not much bigger than the single AA cell (or whatever the lithium equivalent is) so hardly worth carrying a spare battery to change with in the dark.

[meeder]

I just use rechargeables and keep a spare freshly charged set to hand, that way I have at least one fresh set and all juice is used. I have become well known at work for walking around with a torch in each pocket and often get asked why I carry two, the answer is that when one goes dud i just use the other and charge it as soon as I can. Plus having two is handy no and then. The torch is not much bigger than the single AA cell (or whatever the lithium equivalent is) so hardly worth carrying a spare battery to change with in the dark.

Me to, I use Eneloops wherever I can. They even work great in low current devices due to their extremely low self discharge characteristics.
I use a decent charger which helps to prolong their lifespan.

[lpickup]

I tend to use batteries in the following way, or at least I did so before changinmg mostly to a rechargeable regime.

High current loads like a camera, till the camera shows low battery. Then those cells will go into a collection used for medium loads, like analogue wall clocks and remotes, where you use it till it is pretty much completely depleted. That way the cells that are not working any more in the remotes and clocks are pretty much no longer capable of delivering more than 10mA of current into any load, which means that they are pretty much depleted, but they still are capable of running a LCD display clock for a good few months, until the LCD is poor contrast and the cell is pretty much fully depleted. Then they go into the scrap metal pile for recycling.

This is probably how we should all operate...even I, a staunch renewable energy and efficiency nut, don't even get close to this level of effort, and actually I'm not really even sure how I would.  When I was using my digital camera, it would FLY through batteries, as in 4 cells every month of two if I was actually using the camera. As for the other loads I have around the house (remotes, clocks, etc.) that would be candidate targets for those cells, I probably replace 2-4 cells a year.  Granted, if I was tossing in the partially depleted camera batteries into those devices I suspect my replacement rate would increase, but I suspect at the end of the day I would still end up with a growing pile of partially depleted batteries.

This topic has actually taught me one thing about that camera though:  I always assumed the batteries really WERE dead when the camera failed to turned off moments after I turned it on.  In reality there was probably some usable amount of energy left usable by lighter load devices.  But I agree with you that rechargeable is the way to go for those high current draw devices.

[SeanB]

That is why I got the hell in with the nice clock that ate new batteries in a month. I swapped it with an older one which runs a year or more on a cell ( though there is one at home which is still using the same AA cell from 5 years ago, still not leaking at last check) and power it off a 12V standby source. 14Ah of cell capacity ( more or less at this low load, and dropout will be at a level terminal to the cell recovering anyway) will run it fine for any power failure short of a 6 month outage. Also discovered that clock oscillators are really dependant on cell voltage, this one gains time at 1V6,  tried 1V2 and it keeps time perfectly.

I have some NiCd cells in an alarm clock, been in there for over a decade and still do the job. Originally used a CR2032 cell, but got modified a little, now has a 3V regulator using a AC129 PNP germanium transistor, simply because it uses the 3V rail as switch common, and i disliked the slide switch, so put in a small BCD switch instead. My alarm clock, has been running for nearly 30 years. Ricoh made a good module for sure.

[timb]

I tend to use batteries in the following way, or at least I did so before changinmg mostly to a rechargeable regime.

High current loads like a camera, till the camera shows low battery. Then those cells will go into a collection used for medium loads, like analogue wall clocks and remotes, where you use it till it is pretty much completely depleted. That way the cells that are not working any more in the remotes and clocks are pretty much no longer capable of delivering more than 10mA of current into any load, which means that they are pretty much depleted, but they still are capable of running a LCD display clock for a good few months, until the LCD is poor contrast and the cell is pretty much fully depleted. Then they go into the scrap metal pile for recycling.

This is probably how we should all operate...even I, a staunch renewable energy and efficiency nut, don't even get close to this level of effort, and actually I'm not really even sure how I would.  When I was using my digital camera, it would FLY through batteries, as in 4 cells every month of two if I was actually using the camera. As for the other loads I have around the house (remotes, clocks, etc.) that would be candidate targets for those cells, I probably replace 2-4 cells a year.  Granted, if I was tossing in the partially depleted camera batteries into those devices I suspect my replacement rate would increase, but I suspect at the end of the day I would still end up with a growing pile of partially depleted batteries.

This topic has actually taught me one thing about that camera though:  I always assumed the batteries really WERE dead when the camera failed to turned off moments after I turned it on.  In reality there was probably some usable amount of energy left usable by lighter load devices.  But I agree with you that rechargeable is the way to go for those high current draw devices.

4 cells every month? That's not flying through batteries. I remember around 2000 or so, my mother bought a digital camera (early Kodak model) to use for her eBay business. That thing ate a set of batteries (4xAA) an hour! It wouldn't take rechargeable cells either. So we'd buy 200 packs of alkaline cells at the warehouse club.

It was still better than shooting on film, having it developed and scanning the pictures in, which is what she was doing before hand.

Later we got a Sony camera. That managed to only take a set a day, which is amazing considering it stored photos on a floppy disk! I think you could hook an AC adapter to it as well, but it was a pita because the cord wasn't quite long enough, so the brick hung from the camera when it was on a tripod. It would occasionally topple the whole thing over if you weren't careful.

Ah, those were the days. Now she uses an iPhone 6 for all her photos. By the time she gets back to her computer, the photos are there waiting for her.

Besides, who the hell in 2015 doesn't buy a digital camera with swappable lion packs? The only people who actually buy digital cameras these days are people who need DSLR quality and features. Everyone else just used their phone.

[g.lewarne]

not long to go before they either have to live up to their promise of Dec 31st shipping or coming up with another excuse.  Cue the indegogo questions tomorrow.....

[WN1X]

not long to go before they either have to live up to their promise of Dec 31st shipping or coming up with another excuse.  Cue the indegogo questions tomorrow.....

Looks like we are going to need a whole more popcorn 

[LabSpokane]

5 1/2 hours left, Bob. Tick tock...

[WN1X]

Tick tick, tick...crap, my battery died; I needed my Batteriser lol.

[EEVblog]

not long to go before they either have to live up to their promise of Dec 31st shipping or coming up with another excuse.  Cue the indegogo questions tomorrow.....

They have already said they won't ship until January.
But of course that's unlikely to happen with the Energizer lawsuit hanging over their heads.

[SeanB]

You will need a container of popping corn, a big industrial microwave, a large pyrex dish to hold the corn for oilless popping, and a whole container again of assorted spices ( use fresh ground mixed pepper and some garlic salt), plus a few thousand disposable paper dishes to hold for munching from.

[g.lewarne]

not long to go before they either have to live up to their promise of Dec 31st shipping or coming up with another excuse.  Cue the indegogo questions tomorrow.....

They have already said they won't ship until January.
But of course that's unlikely to happen with the Energizer lawsuit hanging over their heads.

Ah yes, but, they still have December 31st shipping date specified on all "products" on their online shop website thing.  They certainly like to be inconsistent and confusing!

[Muttley Snickers]

Talking about scams, the other day whilst out shopping I purchased two packets of potato chips and when we got home I started to put the shopping away and found that one bag of chips was a bit lighter than the other so I weighed them both, one was at 177 grams and the other at 152 yet the packages say 175 grams.

These are a popular big name brand of potato chips, chicken flavour, What do we do ?

Should I make a complaint with the potential of getting some compensation...... ...... or eat the chips......

[Simon]

they probably have a disclaimer about possible variation in weight due to being mechanically packed by machine.

[meeder]

they probably have a disclaimer about possible variation in weight due to being mechanically packed by machine.

You will see a letter 'e' after the weight indication. This means that on average over a certain amount of bags the weight is no less then indicated.

[PA0PBZ]

they probably have a disclaimer about possible variation in weight due to being mechanically packed by machine.

You will see a letter 'e' after the weight indication. This means that on average over a certain amount of bags the weight is no less then indicated.

I think that's only for Europe, and still for a package of 100-200 grams it can not go 4.5% lower than what is indicated, so the minimum in the example given should be 167.125 grams.