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

[digsys]

There'll be enough unhappy "investors" to keep beating this dead cat for a looong time to come yet !! :-)
It's mouse hunting days are gone :-) It's make a cool Monty Python skit though.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi,

No evidence, just a gut a feeling, I suspect that they haven't got a chip yet. It would be pretty hard to design a chip that would work at low voltage and deliver the necessary current efficiently. I can't see any of the major chip companies wanting to touch this opportunity, for the simple reason is there is no market. It makes much more sense to regulate the voltage of all the cells in series, instead of each individual cell.

If you read a few datasheets, you will see that all of these single alkaline cell, boost converters have a minimum output voltage. This is because they run the error amp and the reference from the output. On the best chips the minimum Vout is around 1.5V on some of the less sophisticated up to 2.5V.

There is a quiescent current requirement for this application of around 40uA. If the quiescent current is much higher it will shorten the battery life for low drain devices.


It is very strange that after policing the IGG comments for months and deleting anything that they didn't like, they should suddenly stop. It is like Bob is place where there is no internet connection.

It will be interesting how this ends..

It will be so disappointing if it just fades away. I was a least expecting a device that will work with low to moderate current devices. I know that this can be done in the available space, I have built one.(AA size)

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[Halcyon]

At the end of the day, if manufacturers would be able to work a small boost converter into their batteries and have it work like Batteriser claim, (albeit at the expense of some room ordinarily taken up by the battery chemistry itself) you'd think they'd have already developed such a product. A longer lasting Alkaline battery, in the same standard form factor, with less chemicals? The battery manufacturers would be all over it by now.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi,

Here are the latest comments:






I have awarded Will K a Frosty and Shanky for the 'Efficient communication related to an alkaline battery non-product'. I have to be specific, because I have many similar awards to give out. There are no losers at Frosty and Shanky, everybody gets an award. You can only tell people about if you pay the fee.

Jay_Diddy_B

[Kjelt]

At the end of the day, if manufacturers would be able to work a small boost converter into their batteries and have it work like Batteriser claim, (albeit at the expense of some room ordinarily taken up by the battery chemistry itself) you'd think they'd have already developed such a product. A longer lasting Alkaline battery, in the same standard form factor, with less chemicals? The battery manufacturers would be all over it by now.

Are you kidding? A battery costs less then $0,10 to manufacture, it sells for 10 times the cost and the sooner a consumer replaces a battery the more they sell.
After use they are disposed.
First of all it would make the product too expensive
Second they will sell less batteries.
Third the expensive electronics will be discarded after use, it makes no sense.

The last thing a battery producer will ever do is built an internal batteriser.
What they could do is build an external batteriser that will 24/7 drain the battery so it lasts shorter 

[Fungus]

I doubt they could build 100k parts without taking a serious financial hit. They have only two choices, mass production (and sales) or nothing, and the first choice doesn't really stand a serious chance at this stage. I assume they know this though.

It would be suicide to ship something that:
a) Doesn't work (this is a given)
b) Is childishly simple to test (one clock, two sets of batteries)
c) Has an army of bloggers waiting to tear it to pieces online.

[Halcyon]

At the end of the day, if manufacturers would be able to work a small boost converter into their batteries and have it work like Batteriser claim, (albeit at the expense of some room ordinarily taken up by the battery chemistry itself) you'd think they'd have already developed such a product. A longer lasting Alkaline battery, in the same standard form factor, with less chemicals? The battery manufacturers would be all over it by now.

Are you kidding? A battery costs less then $0,10 to manufacture, it sells for 10 times the cost and the sooner a consumer replaces a battery the more they sell.
After use they are disposed.
First of all it would make the product too expensive
Second they will sell less batteries.
Third the expensive electronics will be discarded after use, it makes no sense.

The last thing a battery producer will ever do is built an internal batteriser.
What they could do is build an external batteriser that will 24/7 drain the battery so it lasts shorter 

Be that as it may, the money they save on chemicals they can build the boost converter... costing roughly the same amount as it does now. Except, they can charge 3x as much per battery (or 800% if you use Batteriser maths). Makes economical sense to me... if it would just work the way Batteriser claims it does. So while sales per unit drop because of extended usage, the premium people pay makes it worth while.

#BatteryPhool anyone?

[Kjelt]

I am not sure where your chemical math comes from but the chemicals in a battery are dirt cheap at the moment (think cents) and a dc-dc converter still costs tens of cents at the minimum.
But if you can do a BOM calculation of a complete pcb dc-dc converter doing just that and costing <10 cents @10Million pieces I think many companies are very interested 

[Halcyon]

I am not sure where your chemical math comes from but the chemicals in a battery are dirt cheap at the moment (think cents) and a dc-dc converter still costs tens of cents at the minimum.
But if you can do a BOM calculation of a complete pcb dc-dc converter doing just that and costing <10 cents @10Million pieces I think many companies are very interested 

Batteriser Maths ;-) Apparently it's a thing. Seriously I just pulled it out of my ass. The point I was making was if Big Battery could make battery better on current technology, they would have long before Roohparvar and his silly idea.

[Kjelt]

Well there we differ but that is ok.
To me it is the same thing as saying if petrol companies could make cars run on water they would have done so a long time ago. Why? It would destroy their businessmodel.
The same for battery companies. They exist because batteries have a limited lifetime, if some genius inventor would invent a 20 yr lasting AA cell battery that would destroy their business.
There is proof that companies think and act like this, in the twenties last century light bulb companies came together and made a secret deal that their lamps should not last longer than 1000 hours, if they did they had to pay the other companies a fine. The whole race to make bulbs last longer and longer ended right there and then. Till it came out ofcourse 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

I also think that the only reason rechargeable batteries were (allowed to be) produced is because they have a lower voltage, internal leakage and relatively short lifetime (4 years?).
And thus form not a direct threat to the conventional battery sales.
Now we do have non leakable rechargeable cells, still lot more expensive than normal rechargeable cells.
As soon as there would be 1,5V rechargeable cells lasting as long as normal batteries, same capacity that would be very interesting to see what would happen.
I my self would not be surprised if big conventional battery companies would buy such a startup to own the patents and keep it under the rug for another 20 years or so.
Alternatively selling them for huge amounts of money so conventional batteries would still be attractive for normal consumers.

[EEVblog]

Note also they said they would ship in March, and in that one reply Bob slipped in "ship in late April" IF Bob even bothers to offeres any more information, any bets on if they change again and say it will be available in May?

Already done!

[firewalker]

I don;t "understand" the reason they are asking for refunds. Refund is when you buy something. 

Alexander.

[EEVblog]

It will be so disappointing if it just fades away. I was a least expecting a device that will work with low to moderate current devices. I know that this can be done in the available space, I have built one.(AA size)

It would have been interesting to see if they would have delivered if the wheels hadn't fallen off the billy cart in terms of engineers calling BS on the concept and all the publicity it's generated.
That's what they expected, that no one would take them to task over their claims, and that they could have just shipping anything.
But the critiques on mine and other videos, and hugely on this forum and other places have resulted in them having to do and change a whole bunch of stuff they I'm betting they never foresaw. It's all fruitless of course, because the product will never work as claimed.
They obviously now realise that their product will be hammered if a single one ever makes into the wild and people actually measure it's performance and verify that the claims are complete BS. As if it needed verifying anyway, because real best case engineering calculations are easily performed on paper, but it will be the final nail in the coffin and they know it.

[AmmoJammo]

And yet, they're STILL selling them on their webpage, and they STILL ship in 30 days...

A failed Indigogo campaign isn't technically theft...

Selling a product that doesn't exist, and never will, on the other hand...

Edit: until you come to actually pay with paypal...

Disabled paypal account?

[g.lewarne]

I don't think they care any more.  They can't ship because they have nothing to ship (let alone the energizer case), Roo Junior got himself a new job, and Boblets probably has loads of cash in the back anyway from his most recent "removal" from digital optics, or whatever it was.

Dave is right, they never expected any of the engineering analysis, negativity and outright bullshit detection to ever happen to their product.  Their entire company is built on a lie, a lie they never imagined would be made public

[Delta]

I don;t "understand" the reason they are asking for refunds. Refund is when you buy something. 

Alexander.

Yep!  More people not understanding that they are investors not customers!  And a few barrack room lawyers thinking that they can sue!  Hahahaha!

[g.lewarne]

And yet, they're STILL selling them on their webpage, and they STILL ship in 30 days...

A failed Indigogo campaign isn't technically theft...

Selling a product that doesn't exist, and never will, on the other hand...

Edit: until you come to actually pay with paypal...

Disabled paypal account?

Confirmed, paypal not working!  I don't think its a regional thing either as I'm in the UK

[Godzil]

Seems to be a configuration problem:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32775620/adaptive-payments-unilateral-receiver-not-allowed-in-chained-payment-is-restric

[Muttley Snickers]

I don;t "understand" the reason they are asking for refunds. Refund is when you buy something.

Yep!  More people not understanding that they are investors not customers!  And a few barrack room lawyers thinking that they can sue!  Hahahaha!

I've never been involved on either side of the crowd funding campaigns but my basic understanding and interpretation was that as a backer you were making a commitment to purchase X number of Y items at Z rate on the proviso that the campaign reached it's nominated goal, this aspect was heavily promoted and perhaps a bit misleading for those not versed in all thing's dodgy.

Also a quick internet search reveals that the term "refund" also relates to the act of restitution, reparation, recompense, reimburse, redress, in addition to pay back..... , not necessarily or specifically of monetary value. Common courtesy and decency has a far greater value than a bob or two in my view....  

[zal42]

as a backer you were making a commitment to purchase X number of Y items at Z rate on the proviso that the campaign reached it's nominated goal

It's not exactly that. You're not making a production pre-order. You are investing in a high-risk venture, and you get "rewards" based on how much you put in. The nature of the reward depends on the people running the campaign. Usually, at a minimum, you get a copy of whatever is being produced, but if you put in more money you can get goodies like meeting the team, getting your name put somewhere, etc. It's a bit like donating money to a charity drive and they give you "prizes" in return.

But what you are not doing is engaging in a retail transaction: I give you money and you ship me a product. People seem to get confused on this point. Understandably so, because the first prize is usually a copy of the product -- so if everything goes well, the effect looks very much like a retail transaction.

[Delta]

as a backer you were making a commitment to purchase X number of Y items at Z rate on the proviso that the campaign reached it's nominated goal

It's not exactly that. You're not making a production pre-order. You are investing in a high-risk venture, and you get "rewards" based on how much you put in. The nature of the reward depends on the people running the campaign. Usually, at a minimum, you get a copy of whatever is being produced, but if you put in more money you can get goodies like meeting the team, getting your name put somewhere, etc. It's a bit like donating money to a charity drive and they give you "prizes" in return.

But what you are not doing is engaging in a retail transaction: I give you money and you ship me a product. People seem to get confused on this point. Understandably so, because the first prize is usually a copy of the product -- so if everything goes well, the effect looks very much like a retail transaction.

It's not even a pre order though (as far as I understand) - this is where further confusion comes in!  You are not committing to purchase anything, you are not pre ordering anything, you are DONATING money to a cause, and that cause may offer "perks" as a token of their appreciation.

Admittedly, many campaigners DO use IGG / KS as a pre ordering system, but it is simply not.  Backers need to be aware of this.  And also of the laws of physics...

[Muttley Snickers]

Obviously I need to study up on how these promotions are organised and as we have all witnessed here not take things at face value or assume that all play fair, thank you for the heads up.....

Added a couple of handy links below for those that went for a ride on the Batteroo bus to nowhere.

IGG terms and conditions.
https://www.indiegogo.com/about/terms

A must read for all.
http://wp.josh.com/2014/01/21/read-this-before-you-contribute-to-an-indiegogo-campaign/

Extract: Will receive sleeves.

[rich]

This confusion over backing vs. buying isn't helped when Ali and Bob Roohparvar were both posting Updates saying:

"Only NN hours left to buy batterisers on Indiegogo!
It's the final stretch of our pre-sale, and we are thankful for all of your contributions! 
In these few final days, don’t forget to refer your friends,  and be rewarded with free Batterisers for every friend who buys. Just use the “link” icon on the left side of the IGG page and share with all your friends via e-mail or social media."

[drussell]

Yeah, I have to chuckle every time I see a Batteriser backer on IGG talk of a lawsuit.  There is no lawsuit.  There can be no lawsuit.  These people willingly gave their money to Batteriser without doing their own due diligence (or even thinking it through for a moment) as an investment...  A donation...  There is no guarantee of ever receiving your perk.  These backers seem to misunderstand that they didn't BUY anything, they may well never receive their "perks" for their donation...

They can ask for a refund or bluster about a lawsuit all they want but that's not how investments and donations work.  You consider the money GONE as soon as it leaves your hand.  In most cases it is very, very difficult to prove seekers of funding were not acting in good faith and fraudulently took your money.  This one is almost there on the tech but people should have realized that before forking over money!

HA! HAHAHAHA!!....  Suckers!! 

The only people that really could call foul are those who have ACTUALLY ORDERED THEIR PRODUCT on the Batteriser website and never receive it.  This is likely to be a very small number of people and given the small value of the good in question, it is highly unlikely anyone would ever bother to waste the money to sue.  Also, anyone who talks of class action fundamentally doesn't even understand how class action suits work.  There will never be a class action suit in this kind of case. 

The IGG backers are simply SOL.

As fot the Energizer thing, remember that is NOT a lawsuit either.  Energizer opposed their application for the Batteriser trademark.  If Batteriser SHIPS with the Batteriser name without getting that cleared up (and there are several possible ways that can be done in these circumstances)  one way or another, THAT would open them up to lawsuits with potentially devastating damages.

As it sits right now, Energizer is NOT suing Batteriser. 

(At least not yet!  )

[Andy Watson]

  There can be no lawsuit.  These people willingly gave their money to Batteriser without doing their own due diligence (or even thinking it through for a moment) as an investment...  A donation...  There is no guarantee of ever receiving your perk.  These backers seem to misunderstand that they didn't BUY anything, they may well never receive their "perks" for their donation...

It probably depends on location, but in some places it could be argued as obtaining money by deception - i.e. fraud. Here is one case
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
and the outcome
http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-makes-crowdfunded-company-pay-shady-deal