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

[AmmoJammo]

The issue with mixing old and new, is that the old would be over discharged.

Much like putting a butteriser in will do, cause the battery to be over discharged.

I'm not sure how they think putting extra load on a battery will stop it from being over discharged :/

[dexters_lab]

Judging from the message it self, there should be message when in NiMH mode.

Alexander.

nope, the message mentions using NiMH or Lipo instead to avoid the limitation:

i would expect 'lithium' means Lithium Iron Disulphide or the AA Energizer Ultimate Lithium disposable cells rather than 'Lithium Polymer' which would be rechargable

[TheAmmoniacal]

Wouldn't the Batteriser over-discharge every battery? Isn't that the purpose of it? Even when the cell is completely flat the DC-DC converter will most likely have a quiescent current draw.

[AmmoJammo]

You'll have to ask the monkey about that! XD

[dexters_lab]

Wouldn't the Batteriser over-discharge every battery? Isn't that the purpose of it? Even when the cell is completely flat the DC-DC converter will most likely have a quiescent current draw.

Ali just posted:

"It takes on average over 30 years to drain alkaline battery at standby current with the Batteriser. The difference with and without Batteriser at standby is negligible. "

indicates a low parasitic load on the battery

i would expect if you had a full battery and an empty one in series the empty battery would just act as a series resistor, how this affects the chemistry to promote leakage i dont really know... i am sure someone will have an answer?

one way to reduce leakage risk is to have the empty battery out of circuit, could the batteriser do this by design?

[TheAmmoniacal]

Ali just posted:

"It takes on average over 30 years to drain alkaline battery at standby current with the Batteriser. The difference with and without Batteriser at standby is negligible. "

I would say that's a bit exaggerated, but not important. What I'm thinking is when the Batteriser is left in the product after it has stopped working, when "all the power has been used from it". How problematic would a ~5 µA load left on it be? (basically ~120k ohm across the terminals) Days? Weeks?

[5ky]

i would expect 'lithium' means Lithium Iron Disulphide or the AA Energizer Ultimate Lithium disposable cells rather than 'Lithium Polymer' which would be rechargable

yeah I'm pretty sure that's what they mean because I don't know of any lipos that are AA format

[dexters_lab]

i would expect 'lithium' means Lithium Iron Disulphide or the AA Energizer Ultimate Lithium disposable cells rather than 'Lithium Polymer' which would be rechargable

yeah I'm pretty sure that's what they mean because I don't know of any lipos that are AA format

yes AFAIK lipo chemistry would mean a 3.7v cell

[dexters_lab]

Wouldn't the Batteriser over-discharge every battery? Isn't that the purpose of it? Even when the cell is completely flat the DC-DC converter will most likely have a quiescent current draw.

Ali just posted:

"It takes on average over 30 years to drain alkaline battery at standby current with the Batteriser. The difference with and without Batteriser at standby is negligible. "

indicates a low parasitic load on the battery

i would expect if you had a full battery and an empty one in series the empty battery would just act as a series resistor, how this affects the chemistry to promote leakage i dont really know... i am sure someone will have an answer?

one way to reduce leakage risk is to have the empty battery out of circuit, could the batteriser do this by design?

Update/correction  from Bob:

"With regard to Stand by current… it is in Micro amps range..if you put Batteriser sleeve on the device it takes over 20 years to drain the battery which by then the battery would be useless anyway."

well, what is a 30% error between friends eh? 

[samgab]

Data is beautiful!

So, I got it into excel and started massaging the data and got it into a nice graph.  VERY interesting results.  You can very clearly tell at what point the screen dimmed because it plateaus.  (again, I'm going to make a video today to put on youtube because people need to see this a real apples to apples test like this to show that batteriser is being very dishonest in their claims)

EDIT: this also means that if we didn't use the stupid servo to keep the screen on, this thing would probably easily do 20-25+ hours on fresh AA's
...

Really excellent work! One thing I found very interesting, is notice the voltage dip where it goes below 1.9V and the unit continues working? In their "technical" snail rebuttal video, at 29:46, the chubby engineer and Frankie both state that the moment a spike "kisses" the 2.2V mark (1.1V per cell) the unit will shut off. This chart proves beyond a shadow of doubt that that claim is false.

I look forward to seeing the video!
Proven: Batteriser causes 41% LOSS in device runtime, using batteriser's own time claims with it on the device. (10:12 hours claimed WITH batteriser; 17:23 hrs proven without batteriser.) This is using a device which they cherry-picked to fit their specific requirements.
(EDIT; went back and fixed my percentage. I need a coffee too...)

[AmmoJammo]

And its been dipping below the 2.2volt point from around the 6hour, 45 minute mark...

They never posted the voltage figures with their gps/butterister test, because I have no doubt they were dropping just as low, just as soon, with their test, if not worse, because its highly unlikely the butteriser can deliver the current claims they make either...

[EEVblog]

Really excellent work! One thing I found very interesting, is notice the voltage dip where it goes below 1.9V and the unit continues working? In their "technical" snail rebuttal video, at 29:46, the chubby engineer and Frankie both state that the moment a spike "kisses" the 2.2V mark (1.1V per cell) the unit will shut off. This chart proves beyond a shadow of doubt that that claim is false.

Of course. Because it's not a problem in most practical products.

[amyk]

GPS video now thoroughly debunked.

[mikeselectricstuff]

The issue of leakage can work both ways - for products that cut off at a high-ish voltage and then stop drawing power, Batteriser will discharge the battery lower than it would otherwise, and also continue to draw some quiescent current, hastening leakage.
However for "dumb" products that are resistive or similar loads (e.g. monkey), batteriser will (presumably) cut off at some voltage, preventing, or at least signifiantly postpone the deep discharge that would make leakage likely. Assuming of course the boost converter architecture has load shutoff as opposed to bypass when the input is undervoltage.

[LabSpokane]

I really think it's time for Dave to get his hands on this Approach G3 and make some comments to the technical video and their recent UL 'certification' / document!

It might be going too far to directly say the document is fake, and I wouldn't encourage Dave to say it. But let's be real, it's fake.

1. It looks nothing like an official document I've ever seen, it has spelling mistakes and awkward grammar.
2. The UL logo is missing the copyright logo.
3. It looks nothing likely any UL report/certification I can find online: http://www.multi-contact.com/AcroFiles/Zertifikate/UL/UL_E351413_CND_%28en%29.pdf or http://www.gadgetplusstore.com/sites/default/files/uploads/1274255303%26%2609.jpg
4. A company like UL would most definitely use a fixed template.
5. No technical information is listed, no signatures, dates, reference numbers, issueee, etc.
6. It's a screen capture of a Word document (JPG), not PDF.
7. Inconsistent use of language, says the test is terminated when a low battery message is displayed - while at the same time saying the GPS shuts down when the test ends (without batteriser).
etc etc.

Anyone who knows more can give more points I am sure.

The document only makes sense if this is the procedure provided by Batteroo and sent to UL for them to test. i.e. Batteroo's own findings that they want UL to replicate. But then, why the UL logo?

May I say conspiranoid and even more crazy than usual if I think about the following?

- Who's that teacher and his workers at this startup?
* Is his identity and degree really verified?
* Where did he get his degree from (I hope not from one of those infamous fake universities [1] [2] ?
- Is his university officially aware of his entrepreneur activity at Batteroo Inc and supports him in some way? Does somebody from his university department support his efforts and product capabilities?
- Any information about this information with some feedback about the education quality and resources of this university?
* Feedback from former students, despite being known in the industry or just anonymous faces.
* Former and current workers.
* Reports and feedback from government, charities, companies and other kind of institutions.

I looked, and Bob and Frankie's academic credentials appear sound.

[edy]

I looked, and Bob and Frankie's academic credentials appear sound.

I have no doubt the Roohparvars are very clever in engineering and business. I am sure they know exactly what they are doing, and they know exactly what the Batteriser does. I believe that this was calculated and designed from the very beginning as a way to sell a cheap device to the masses to help make some of their electronics function more optimally (no dimming, no slowing down, no reduced functions, no compromise) for a longer time than otherwise expected due to gradual battery voltage decrease.... albeit shorter time overall because once it does increase the current draw to maintain the voltage it drains the battery quicker. It Is an "all or nothing" which they justify by using examples like flashlights and certain toys where lower voltage performance, while still allowing the device to function, may not be as useful to the end user.

Nevertheless, I am confident everything was chosen exactly because Batteroo knew how best to fool the uninformed lay public. They miscalculated the attention they would get from other EE's and hobbyists, and chose a very bad set of people to run their YouTube channel, PR marketing and social media accounts (easy to spot fakes, astroturfing, not professional, etc).

Once they over-reached their marketing and started designing tests and demonstrations which are completely biased to promote Batteriser and not in any way prove it has any value, they took it down the hole with them and the rest just added fuel to the fire. I bet many people would have bought the Batteriser if it simply promoted "optimal voltage to get the best light/speed out of your high-energy using toys for longer" and never tried to tackle any other purpose.

[5ky]

I looked, and Bob and Frankie's academic credentials appear sound.

I have no doubt the Roohparvars are very clever in engineering and business. I am sure they know exactly what they are doing, and they know exactly what the Batteriser does. I believe that this was calculated and designed from the very beginning as a way to sell a cheap device to the masses to help make some of their electronics function more optimally (no dimming, no slowing down, no reduced functions, no compromise) for a longer time than otherwise expected due to gradual battery voltage decrease.... albeit shorter time overall because once it does increase the current draw to maintain the voltage it drains the battery quicker. It Is an "all or nothing" which they justify by using examples like flashlights and certain toys where lower voltage performance, while still allowing the device to function, may not be as useful to the end user.

Nevertheless, I am confident everything was chosen exactly because Batteroo knew how best to fool the uninformed lay public. They miscalculated the attention they would get from other EE's and hobbyists, and chose a very bad set of people to run their YouTube channel, PR marketing and social media accounts (easy to spot fakes, astroturfing, not professional, etc).

Once they over-reached their marketing and started designing tests and demonstrations which are completely biased to promote Batteriser and not in any way prove it has any value, they took it down the hole with them and the rest just added fuel to the fire. I bet many people would have bought the Batteriser if it simply promoted "optimal voltage to get the best light/speed out of your high-energy using toys for longer" and never tried to tackle any other purpose.

well said! 

[Synthetase]

Battery chemistry. The chemical reactions will slow down as the ambient temperature drops, limiting current flow. Also when the cell is subjected to higher load current, what you're asking from the chemistry is for a lot of ions to find their way to electrodes really quickly, this is a physical process and it takes time for it to happen, hence the faster you want it to go, the less time it'll last and vice versa. This is also why cells can appear to recover significant capacity after a rest: the chemicals have had a chance to disperse more throughout the whole cell, so you don't have a huge build-up of 'spent' chemicals directly around each electrode.

But the only effect of all that is to change the ESR...?

Not sure if this has been addressed - don't have time to read the latest 10 pages of the thread, but...

The ESR of a cell is a complex beast, merely modelled by electronics engineers as a resistor within the cell which is close enough for their purposes. What you know is that there is some inherent impedance to current flow, you don't care how it happens, just that it does. Although, if you look at the AA cell data sheets Dave was showing in one of his batteriser videos, you can see the discharge curve alters as the discharge current does, so they do a few under a range of different currents. This is to take the variation of the cell's ESR under different loading conditions into account, giving design engineers a starting point to work from.

As for how ESR actually occurs, the power of the cell is derived from chemical reactions, hence anything that will act to slow down the flow of electrons will be lumped under ESR. If the reaction cannot proceed fast enough to give you as many electrons/second as you'd like (ambient temp, short circuit, etc): ESR. If the reaction at the electrodes is happening so fast that fresh ions in the chemical mix cannot get to the electrodes fast enough in order to give up/join with their electrons: ESR. A change in surface area of the electrodes due to being eaten away by the reaction will also alter the ESR (this is a very common failure mode for lead-acid batteries). Anything else you can think of that alters the efficiency of the reaction will alter the ESR.

[jippie]

Regarding burden voltage due to the current shunt, allow me to type order magnitude numbers here for argument sake, cutting few corners here.

• It was claimed that the device stopped working after little under 2 hours, that is 4 divisions in above graph. The voltage at that point is approximately 2.7V.
• Without current shunt in series with the power supply, the device stops full backlight after 13 divisions. The voltage at that point is approximately 2.4V.
• So I would estimate burden voltage to be about 0.2 to 0.3V.
• If I recall correctly the current averaged about 150mA, then the current shunt would be around 0.3/0.150 = 2 ohms?

Does that make sense?
My main multimeter (top end consumer electronics) has a spec'd burden voltage of 1.5mV/mA in 500mA range, resulting in 1.5 ohms. I mean to say order magnitude of the burden voltage seems viable to me.
Someone mentioned the 10A socket was used for current measurements, but I didn't spot that in the GPS video. I've seen the 10A socket on a DVM used in another video, probably the monkey but I'm not sure about that.

[Davey_Jonez]

OMG, the idiot factor is high. UL is not issuing certification, then there would be a UL logo with copyright stuff. They received test verification. I have used UL like that in the past. It is real, not faked. It means they cannot put UL on the retail package, but UL tested and verified their results.
I am not going to go off and buy a Garmin G3 and test it, but I know people that use it on the golf course and they complain it gets 9 hours tops and they are not tapping the screen every 12-15 seconds. So, not sure what this result below is, but if UL tested it and verified, then I would believe UL over some guy on a blog. Make all of the videos you want to, and I know you will, I would say good luck, but I do not care about any of this crap.

[Nerull]

UL doesn't do tests like that. The entire point of getting something UL tested is to get a certification allowing you to put their logo on your device/packaging/marketing.

If they have instead received "test verification" which does not permit them to claim UL certification, than isn't posting a claim of UL certification, using their logo, on the company twitter account illegal? If you do not have UL certification, you are not permitted to use their logo in any way. There is no "we submitted it for testing" permitted use, there is no "They tested but didn't receive a certification" use - which, by the way, means you failed testing.

You have never dealt with UL, but I'm sure their lawyers will be contacting you soon. UL is very protective of its trademark and reputation.

[5ky]

OMG, the idiot factor is high. UL is not issuing certification, then there would be a UL logo with copyright stuff. They received test verification. I have used UL like that in the past. It is real, not faked. It means they cannot put UL on the retail package, but UL tested and verified their results.
I am not going to go off and buy a Garmin G3 and test it, but I know people that use it on the golf course and they complain it gets 9 hours tops and they are not tapping the screen every 12-15 seconds. So, not sure what this result below is, but if UL tested it and verified, then I would believe UL over some guy on a blog. Make all of the videos you want to, and I know you will, I would say good luck, but I do not care about any of this crap.

So the batteriser test CLEARLY stops the test when the brightness warning appears on the screen, and they call that the point at which is "shuts down and the screen dims to black"?  Lying c*nts.

Calling that the stopping point means 1.5 hours versus 17 hours.  (or 11.7 hours if we throw in 300 mV of burden voltage)  Why be dishonest about shit like that?

[andrew.perrong]

I think this "Mr. Jones" is a bit of a batteriser shill, eh? Using a fake profile with a fake name, and pretending to be "new" to this stuff and having "friends" that have the G3.

OMG, the idiot factor is high. UL is not issuing certification, then there would be a UL logo with copyright stuff. They received test verification. I have used UL like that in the past. It is real, not faked. It means they cannot put UL on the retail package, but UL tested and verified their results.
I am not going to go off and buy a Garmin G3 and test it, but I know people that use it on the golf course and they complain it gets 9 hours tops and they are not tapping the screen every 12-15 seconds. So, not sure what this result below is, but if UL tested it and verified, then I would believe UL over some guy on a blog. Make all of the videos you want to, and I know you will, I would say good luck, but I do not care about any of this crap.

[Nerull]

UL expressly forbids even using their name in any way related to a product or its marketing unless you have entered into a service agreement with them. Have you? You're not even allowed to say a product is in testing!

Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that UL Contracting Party or
another UL Company owns the UL Mark. Subscriber expressly agrees that it shall not
use the name of UL Contracting Party or another UL Company or the UL Mark on or in
connection with, the Covered Product, containers, or packaging, unless and until the
Subscriber has entered into a Service Agreement for Follow-Up Services with
UL Contracting Party and then only in the form of manner specified in the Follow-Up
Service Procedure (e.g., Subscriber may not refer to a Covered Product as “UL
pending”)

It sounds like UL also wants to review any promotional use, for which you need permission in writing (do you have it?), to make sure you aren't trying to pull a fast to one by claiming something they didn't do (sound familar?):

UL Contracting Party will permit Subscriber to make appropriate references to
UL Contracting Party or another UL Company as authorized from time to time in writing
by UL Contracting Party and specified in the Follow-Up Service Procedure) in
promotional or advertising material, in any medium, including, without limitation, print or
electronic media, solely in connection with Covered Products that bear the UL Mark;
PROVIDED THAT, in UL Contracting Party’s sole opinion, the following conditions are
met: (a) the promotional or advertising material is in no way inconsistent with the
findings or coverages of UL Contracting Party; (b) the reference to UL Contracting Party
or another UL Company is not intended to and does not create a misleading impression
as to the nature of UL Contracting Party’s findings, its coverages, or its Service; and
(c) the promotional or advertising material does not in any manner state or imply that
UL Contracting Party or any other UL Company is in any way (i) “endorsing” or
“certifying” the Covered Product; or (ii) “warranting” or “guaranteeing” any aspect of the
Covered Product, its performance, or its “safety.” Except for the UL Mark that is
prescribed for use in a specific Follow-Up Service Procedure, no other UL Mark may be
used in any advertising or promotional material related to a Covered Product. In those
instances where a UL Mark is used, any text which is required by the Follow-Up Service
Procedure shall be set forth in full in any such advertising or promotional materials.

And note that, once again, if you haven't gotten permission to put the UL mark on your product, you don't have permission to use it anywhere else or refer to them testing your product at all, including on twitter.

Violation of any of these can result in immediate termination of your service agreement and possible other penalties. Hope you've got a good legal team...

[samgab]

... I do not care about any of this crap.

And yet you're still here. One would have to wonder why?