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

[SL4P]

This is kinda sad, because Wikipedia in its early days, was looking like a valid resource to take the place of paper encyclopaedia, but while it's grown over the years, my trust in their objectivity is waning.

As mentioned earlier, the pool if editors seem to be protecting their cohort by 'staying safe' rather than recording both casually documented facts along with scholarly referrals. 
You can have both, but it demands respect for the contributors - which may be slipping... and that brings resort for thee distorts, which may also be slipping.

[rrinker]

 Wow, didn't read that whole Talk page, but skimmed it. Seems like Tsavage is a voice of reason pretty much opposing every one of Ronz's proposals. I like the one most of the way down where he refutes Ronz's claim that there is insufficient external source references by citing a count of them by type. And all Ronz can say is "if you don't want to support your position..." 

 All I want to know is, what in the world did you do to piss off this guy so much that he want to wipe any reference to your existence from Wikipedia? Turn him down for a job? Tell him his circuit design was crap? Wait, I know - one of those beers that got poured down the drain was his favorite, and he just can't fathom the idea that there are people in the world who just don't like beer. 

[Howardlong]

I don't know what the Wikipedia Ronz story is (ISTR there is a Ronz on this forum too, I assume there is no connection). The individual just seems to have an inordinate amount of time to spend on busy bodying themselves on Wikipedia judging from the enormous number of deletions and other edits he/she is involved in across a large number of Wikipedia entries.

The other individual who changed their Wikipedia user name to try to avoid being identified as a banned EEVblog user has recently suddenly been very quiet, since it was discovered that that individual had been using different IP addresses to make comments and vote wihout logging in.

That individual also accused other contributors of all manner of things including having a conflict of interest and s/he also had a go at doxing other contributors... only to get all upset when the conversation turned back on him/her suggesting where the real conflict of interest lay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/%E3%82%BC%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AD/Archive

S/he has also recently had IP address proxy unblocks refused, one can only draw the conclusion the perp is trying to continue with his/her sockpuppetry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E3%82%BC%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AD

Wikipedia is indeed a weird place that's for sure.

Anyway, this is totally off topic, back to the Batteriser nonsense!

[Halcyon]

Anyway, this is totally off topic, back to the Batteriser nonsense!

Can someone create a "cymbal clanging monkey" icon to add to the repertoire of smileys? 

[Brumby]

[rich]

I checked on the progress of the trademark soap opera again today, it's quietly had 2 more submissions in late May...

20 May 2016, Batteroo submitted: "Request for Express Abandonment of Application" for both Batterise and Batteriser marks and argues that because the opposition only relates to these marks, then that opposition should be dismissed:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-6.pdf[/url]]
Because these are the only subject of this opposition before the trial and appeal board, applicant further requests that this opposition be dismissed.

23 May 2016 Energizer requests a: "Motion for summary judgement" asks for judgement of the opposition not to be 'dismissed', but be entered against Batteroo:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-7.pdf[/url]]
Opposer never consented in writing, or otherwise, to the abandonment. As a result, Opposer respectfully requests pursuant to 37 CFR § 2.135 that the Board enter a judgment in its favour in Opposition No. 91225355. Applicant’s request that the opposition be dismissed as a result of the abandonment is improper and should be denied.

And for completeness CFR § 2.135 states:

After the commencement of an opposition, concurrent use, or interference proceeding, if the applicant files a written abandonment of the application or of the mark without the written consent of every adverse party to the proceeding, judgment shall be entered against the applicant.

If it's as simple as Energizer states then Batteroo have deliberately lost and can now legitimately claim big battery killed them!

[Galenbo]

Wikipedia biggest issue is "trust references not truth"

Unless they change that behaviour you can't read any technical articles without a lot of doubt...
After that incident I've completely lost trust in Wikipedia, that's just a lair of trolls.

I still like them a lot for things I don't know much about.

Last example was Ethernet/IP (Industrial protocol) used by PLC manufacturers, where their claim: "totally new concept nothing to do with the existing ethernet but compatible blablabla" caused some questions in my head.
Wikipedia contains a lot of info that explained it's just another protocol on top of TCP/IP and/or UDP/IP, often object oriented, with open/documented/vendorspecific objects.

I can't imagine a better source to get that info fast and clear, I'm sure there could be some errors, but the time these are important I would already have switched over to other sources. It's a good best-effort example, nobody garantees perfection, but at least it's there.

[Galenbo]

Ronz is one of at least two people who are hell bent on getting my Wikipedia page removed.
So obsessed that my Talk page is bigger than Donald Trumps!

Make some video about improving the performance of guns with electronics, or the way a sensor network could be used on the Wall, and you put a new record :-)

[apis]

Wikipedia biggest issue is "trust references not truth"

Unless they change that behaviour you can't read any technical articles without a lot of doubt.
I'm working on documenting an old device, and the Wikipedia page is full of errors, I corrected them with explanation in the edit comment,to get them reverted a few minutes later because "no references so it's not valid".

After that incident I've completely lost trust in Wikipedia, that's just a lair of trolls.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who claim to be experts, or who really are experts but are completely wrong anyway. The only way Wikipedia can determine what is true is by delegating the problem to "reliable sources". After all, if the majority of the worlds experts agree on something no-one can fault Wikipedia for saying it is so (even if in some cases it turns out to be wrong).

Wikipedias biggest issue, imo, is that every subject matter that is the slightest bit controversial becomes a war-zone (huge time sink and endless source of frustration) and in the end the side with the largest crowd of zelots win (it's not supposed to work like that, but it does). So you can't really trust anything that's controversial, especially if it's an article that has gotten little media attention so only few people have it on their watch-list, Daves page is a perfect example. Then there are paid editors (advertisers/lobbyists) that edit incognito in order to promote some special interest, the Batteriser is as good example as any. We know they paid for Youtube likes (and dislikes) so why not Wikipedia.

[Godzil]

Wikipedia biggest issue is "trust references not truth"

Unless they change that behaviour you can't read any technical articles without a lot of doubt.
I'm working on documenting an old device, and the Wikipedia page is full of errors, I corrected them with explanation in the edit comment,to get them reverted a few minutes later because "no references so it's not valid".

After that incident I've completely lost trust in Wikipedia, that's just a lair of trolls.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who claim to be experts, or who really are experts but are completely wrong anyway. The only way Wikipedia can determine what is true is by delegating the problem to "reliable sources". After all, if the majority of the worlds experts agree on something no-one can fault Wikipedia for saying it is so (even if in some cases it turns out to be wrong).

Wikipedias biggest issue, imo, is that every subject matter that is the slightest bit controversial becomes a war-zone (huge time sink and endless source of frustration) and in the end the side with the largest crowd of zelots win (it's not supposed to work like that, but it does). So you can't really trust anything that's controversial, especially if it's an article that has gotten little media attention so only few people have it on their watch-list, Daves page is a perfect example. Then there are paid editors (advertisers/lobbyists) that edit incognito in order to promote some special interest, the Batteriser is as good example as any. We know they paid for Youtube likes (and dislikes) so why not Wikipedia.

I agree with that, the issue is when there is NO reliable source, and the only one used is a source reliying on Wikipedia to announce things! that Wikipedia then use as a reference.
And it's not like if the change I made was that huge, it was just to correct some stupid things written, and in fact I even added some sources, but it seems that the device manufacturer is not a reliable source anyway so.

My concern is to not let AT ALL the possibility to correct an error, even with a discussion, especially on subject which are not "mainstream".

It's a bit like if the Wikipedia page was telling that Dave is Austrian, because a "reputable" website made a mistake (or read wikipedia that were saying that) even if you can prove using Dave website that he is Australian.

Also there are plenty of things on wikipedia which does not have a "reference on each word", sometimes there is not even a single reference, and no one really complain.

Anyway, I'm fed with Wikipedia, still using it, but not even try to help editing/updating things.

[Galenbo]

Anyway, I'm fed with Wikipedia, still using it, but not even try to help editing/updating things.

I guess that's the only way to deal with it. It's also the reason why I would never give them the dollars they falsely-desperately ask.

[SL4P]

An interesting consequence of 'democracy' in action.
Those that speak loudest receive, the rest have to accept whatever they get.

[Brumby]

I wouldn't call it 'interesting' as much as 'inevitable'.

It's a fundamental of the democratic process - and it's why there are 'activists' ... they try to get people involved.


For those who do not exercise their voice, lack of representation MUST ensue.  The Australian Federal election coming up being our next major opportunity. (off topic)

[EEVblog]

Please don't derail the thread, stick to the Batteriser.

[ez24]

Sorry - msg deleted because it was off topic

To the point:

Why does a magazine continue to post this:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html

(just read about the break in - so that is probably the reason behind the delay ha ha)

Has PCWorld gone to the dogs (been years since I bought an issue).  Seems that if they had any integrity they would take this page down.

[EEVblog]

Why does a magazine continue to post this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html

Because magazine and blogs typically don't delete old posts and articles, and that's a good thing from an archive point of view. If it needs a correction then they can amend it.
It's out of sight and out of mind.

[samgab]

Why does a magazine continue to post this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html

Because magazine and blogs typically don't delete old posts and articles, and that's a good thing from an archive point of view. If it needs a correction then they can amend it.
It's out of sight and out of mind.

Didn't the book "1984" have some comment on this type of thing? Change/modify all the historical records of a thing/statement, and that thing/statement ceases to have ever existed in its previous form...  If they change the online article into a piece critical of Batteriser's claims, who are we to suggest they ever sycophantically supported it?  Thank goodness for screenshots!

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi,

We can mark three months since the last comment by Bob on the IGG Campaign:



I hope that this doesn't just fade away....

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[Kjelt]

I hope that this doesn't just fade away....

it already has, at least for most.

[rich]

They are still plugging on with stuff, it's just less visible:

• Withdrawn their Trademark applications for Batteriser and Batterise
• New marketing preview video up with Batteroo rather than Batteriser branding
• Still deleting posts on Facebook, including their own which said they would receive word from the factory  'tomorrow'. And as per normal, tomorrow never came.
  

Videos:

[Delta]

I hope that this doesn't just fade away....

it already has, at least for most.

I guess they'd rather die than f-f-fade away...

[Galenbo]

Thank goodness for screenshots!

Your screenshots can always be redefined as fake images, as part of a conspiracy. And then be used against you, as evidence.

[Halcyon]

Thank goodness for screenshots!

Your screenshots can always be redefined as fake images, as part of a conspiracy. And then be used against you, as evidence.

It'd never come to that. Even though images are removed, Facebook retains logs and metadata. Circumstantial evidence alone would suggest that the comments did exist (at least in some form) and were removed by Batteroo themselves. Removal in itself would cast severe doubt on their story and claims that the screenshots were malicious. That's also how a criminal court works, if you can cast doubt or attack someones character over one small aspect, you assume that everything else that person has said was doubtful (even if it wasn't).

[Brumby]

I'm wondering how some of the 'interested parties' that have blogged on the "Batteryriser" are feeling these days?

I tried to engage one in some constructive discussion a few months back - but he seemed so hell bent on kicking the Engineering community to the kerb, that he ended up blocking me.

There are several parts of the blog I'd like to make reference to - but to be fair, I would need to transcribe them, so I shall limit myself to this excerpt - and I quote:

You're attacking the hell out of this $2.50 device like if somebody spent $2.50 it would be the end of the world.  I'm not worried about spending $2.50.  I'll find out if it freakin' works.  If it works, you know, we'll get a few of them, we could spend ten bucks or whatever - and, you know, somebody will say ... well ... if I get scammed, I get scammed.

I would like to respond by saying - Engineers and like minded people don't look at the cost as being an excuse for getting scammed.  If it isn't going to work as advertised, they are going to challenge it.  On principle.  They are also going to look at the bigger picture - not just from the small value of each individual's contribution, but from the total take the scammers will walk away with.

It seems some bloggers are content to let them do that.

This particular blogger challenged my assertion that everybody is waiting for them to ship - and while it was not my original scope, I must accept there is one corner of the world where this is true - Batteroo.


The rest of us want to see one in the flesh.

[chris_leyson]

Maybe they have finished the electronics or perhaps they are still working on it, who knows. What interests me is how the hell you pick and place battery sleeves onto pasted up PCBs and expect them to stay upright when going through the reflow oven. Also the sleeve would have to remain dimensionally accurate to match the PCB footprint whilst being reflowed. Even if the product worked it would be an engineering nightmare to manufacture, I suspect it would take a lot of fixures and tooling just to get the manufacturing right. Yet another oversight from Batteroo.