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

[LabSpokane]

Between all the money flying around...

Between all the heavy-hitters and experts with doctorates getting their pockets lined  ...

Between all the the slick marketing drones ....

Between all the stock options being passed out like Halloween candy ...

Between all of the Death by PowerPuke presentations ..

Between all the VCs being endlessly pandered to ...

Not one person seems to be able perform the thunderingly obvious act to place fresh AAs into a device, attach a logging voltmeter, wait, read the result, and speak the truth.

Not one.

[chadb]

Another engineering professor weighs in on batteriser:

http://media.theage.com.au/technology/tech-talk/batteriser-too-good-to-be-true-6853920.html

[edy]

This thing is starting to remind me of the Firepower scam. An obvious scam from day one - a magic fuel saver pill you dropped in your gas tank - still managed to bring on high profile investors and secure the backing of the Australian government, including the PM. The "inventor" was receiving enough money to buy himself a few sports teams before the company folded with no product and he fled the country.

I just read the Firepower scam on Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firepower_International

Wow! Just wow! You are right, it is shaping up to be the same sort of high-brass con-job. Except this time they are being called out from day one. I'm not sure how Firepower managed to make it so big, it seems to have been debunked early on yet still managed to continue growing unabated. I wonder if Batteriser will just do the same and advertise their way to the masses with oodles of cash from more bilked investors while the scientific community gets silenced.

[neotesla]

I wonder if they plan to sell the Batteriser in form factor that would fit onto a Tesla Powerwall.

[TheAmmoniacal]

Someone should just comment on their page that they need an NTIA Exclusion Approval (or some other fake/bogus certification) and see if they come up with a report for it anyway 

[firewalker]

Alexander.

[AmmoJammo]

Alexander.

Someone should ask him what, and what he considers to be high current.

If you can pull 2watts for 10 minutes, you're not going to increase this to 50 minutes...

[Galenbo]

Could someone that has been across all the claims, bs and fog of marketing-speak, please put together an easy to read matrix of claims vs actual posted/observed/claimed results?
Batteriser are welcome to contribute with evidence supported claims.

e.g   FCC, UL, date, chemistry, technology, fansite claims on one edge, and responders/ refuters along the other - with results at the meeting points...

This will clearly reveal truths, doublespeak, viable science and straight out falsehoods in an easy to understand format...  it's what Boob Ropahrvar should already have on his desk.

I know somebody who could fit that job, I don't know the real name, but on internet he's known as SL4P.

[Halcyon]

They have got to start coming up with better fake names than "Rod Walsh". C'mon! Batteroo, you aren't fooling anyone! Since Dave went to NIDA, maybe he can assist you in being a bit more creative?  At least do what you did with the "paid dislikes" thing and pay some Vietnamese to comment on your videos for you.

[Fungus]

Not one person seems to be able perform the thunderingly obvious act to place fresh AAs into a device, attach a logging voltmeter, wait, read the result, and speak the truth.

Not one.

Who needs a voltmeter?

The reason is obvious: NOBODY has been alone with a Batteriser for ten minutes to try it out. Not one person.

(Which in itself is a red flag about 1 mile wide, but nobody seems to have noticed that either.)

[lpickup]

And they go on to say in the PR release:

Batteriser, currently the only device of its kind, has been tested and proven compatible on a variety of battery-operated home and office gadgets, including wireless keyboards, noise cancelling headphones, Xbox and Wii controllers, TV remote controls, walkie-talkies, digital scales, electric toothbrushes, toys, portable radios, flashlights, and blood pressure monitors.

What about GPS units? Forgot the most important one?

I'm very surprised that digital camera is not in that list. Out of all the products listed, that's the one that probably exhibits the highest current spikes that could trigger an early cut out as Batteroo claims, and in fact the Zinniker paper they love to quote specifically singled out such a camera.  AND, the syyenergy guy points out that his camera will only record 5-8 minutes on alkalines, so obviously a high load device like this (which Batteroo claims gives the BEST improvement) would be one of the KEY products that Batteroo would put out there as proof of their product's worth, not to mention one that I'm sure people are familiar with and probably are specifically frustrated with short battery life.

The fact that it's NOT on that list really says something, doesn't it.

[jancumps]

The TV remote control reappears on the list. Something that was earlier on mentioned by the company as an item where the product wouldn't give advantage.

[AmmoJammo]

Their statement doesn't claim to have gained any performance...

has been tested and proven compatible on a variety of battery-operated home and office gadgets

"compatible" simply means it fits... it doesn't mean it gains any performance.

"tested" simply means the device still turned on.

[drussell]

"compatible" simply means it fits... it doesn't mean it gains any performance.

"tested" simply means the device still turned on.

Yeah, the vast majority of their claims (virtually everything, except for a few slip-ups) and marketing hooey have been very carefully worded to say absolutely nothing at all.  All the grandiose claims are qualified with an "up to.." for example and they're going to extreme lengths to avoid actually releasing any data or allow any kind of performance testing and real results.  I'm convinced they know what they're doing with this BS and are intentionally obfuscating the truth at every turn.

Many people fall for that ruse, unfortunately...  It's all so very, very sad... 

 

[madires]

Many people fall for that ruse, unfortunately...  It's all so very, very sad... 

That's the way it is. We can't save the world from BS and we shouldn't put too much effort into the whole debunking. It's always the same process. When you (as the engineer) say something critical you'll be the grinch. Later on, when most people realize that the whole thing is BS, it's your turn to say "I've told you so". Works every time

[bitwelder]

Alexander.

So Rod Walsh has a company running on high-drained batteries?   

[Godzil]

D'you think it's the same Rod: http://creation.com/rod-walsh-ark-van

It would make sense

This is this one too: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=vSQj_j_SA3A which would make even more sense

[Wytnucls]

Alexander.

So Rod Walsh has a company running on high-drained batteries?   

Hat fan company?

[LabSpokane]

Many people fall for that ruse, unfortunately...  It's all so very, very sad... 

That's the way it is. We can't save the world from BS and we shouldn't put too much effort into the whole debunking. It's always the same process. When you (as the engineer) say something critical you'll be the grinch. Later on, when most people realize that the whole thing is BS, it's your turn to say "I've told you so". Works every time

The issue really isn't the product. The primary issue is the claims being made by persons educated and familiar in the art that cannot be substantiated by sound and obvious methods.

Then there is the issue of the test protocols that are being submitted to test laboratories that bear little resemblance to the actual normal operation region of the device. I fully understand the need for a passive load in an RF chamber. Using a 1K ohm resistor to generate a 2.25 mW load on a device that supposedly works best on a high drain device with a 100-200X load does not make a representative test. It is surprising that someone would submit such a "test" to the FCC as the basis for approval.  I could understand the 2.25 mW load as part of a *series* of tests, but certainly not as the one and only test.

[madires]

Many people fall for that ruse, unfortunately...  It's all so very, very sad... 

That's the way it is. We can't save the world from BS and we shouldn't put too much effort into the whole debunking. It's always the same process. When you (as the engineer) say something critical you'll be the grinch. Later on, when most people realize that the whole thing is BS, it's your turn to say "I've told you so". Works every time

The issue really isn't the product. The primary issue is the claims being made by persons educated and familiar in the art that cannot be substantiated by sound and obvious methods.

Actually I meant the whole package including marketing and what have you. And it's not just Batteriser, it happens all the time, mostly in companies. Some brilliant idea from some manager, things like that. I've met EEs working in the sales department, talking a lot of BS and not having any idea about what they are selling.

Then there is the issue of the test protocols that are being submitted to test laboratories that bear little resemblance to the actual normal operation region of the device. I fully understand the need for a passive load in an RF chamber. Using a 1K ohm resistor to generate a 2.25 mW load on a device that supposedly works best on a high drain device with a 100-200X load does not make a representative test. It is surprising that someone would submit such a "test" to the FCC as the basis for approval.  I could understand the 2.25 mW load as part of a *series* of tests, but certainly not as the one and only test.

I fully agree. But even the FCC isn't foolproof.

[drussell]

The issue really isn't the product. The primary issue is the claims being made by persons educated and familiar in the art that cannot be substantiated by sound and obvious methods.

Well, thats just it.  Most of their claims are backed up with disclamers and "up-to"s to the point that they actually mean nothing.  They are inferring the product will actually meet somewhere close to what these claims sound like they're claiming at first glance and doing it in a way which will mislead many (if not most) people but most of their claims seem to be very carefully worded to avoid actually making any claims at all. 

Then there is the issue of the test protocols that are being submitted to test laboratories that bear little resemblance to the actual normal operation region of the device. I fully understand the need for a passive load in an RF chamber. Using a 1K ohm resistor to generate a 2.25 mW load on a device that supposedly works best on a high drain device with a 100-200X load does not make a representative test. It is surprising that someone would submit such a "test" to the FCC as the basis for approval.  I could understand the 2.25 mW load as part of a *series* of tests, but certainly not as the one and only test.

Again, they seem to be doing all of this intentionally.  Instead of actually having their product tested for performance in real-world scenarios, they supply a test hand-picked to be meaningless and misleading.  Instead of having their product tested for radiated emissions in worst-case scenario tests as you should when using sound engineering principles, they have it tested with a very light load to virtually assure passing the test but tell nothing about real-world applications and usage... 

It's all very underhanded and misleading but carefully disecting their claims shows most of them to actually mean nothing.  Very, very deceptive!

[dexters_lab]

just posted to Announcements

Check out what our newest expert advisory board members say about Batteriser!

With more than 20 U.S. patents covering many aspects of battery technology, Blomgren currently serves as President of Blomgren Consulting Services, consulting with companies around the world on battery technology and applications; and as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University.  During a 41-year career with Union Carbide Corp., which evolved into the Eveready Battery Co., he worked on several advancements in battery technologies, earning the company's highest technical position - Senior Technology Fellow. After Eveready, Blomgren founded and was Chief Scientist of Imara Corp.  He has also served as Associate Editor of the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Chair of the ECS Battery Division, and adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University.


"I have been pleasantly surprised at the depth of understanding of the Roohparvar brothers regarding the Batteriser development," said Blomgren.  "They were able to look at a problem with alkaline batteries related to extracting the maximum capacity from each cell and relate it to their deep knowledge of electronic circuitry.  While their approach can work for any type of battery, the alkaline cell is particularly sensitive because of its steeply decreasing voltage during discharge.  The battery industry has never clearly explained this fact to the consumer, but battery experts have been well aware of the problem and the great waste encountered, especially when devices use relatively high cut-off voltages. But the industry has never produced a means to solve or get around the problem.  These men and their staffs are very enterprising, thoughtful and intelligent in their approach to a new and revolutionary battery device."


Learn more, and also read what board member and environmental advocate Bob Lillenfield of use less stuff  has said about us,  here:   http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/batteroo-adds-former-battery-company-technologist-environmental-advocate-to-advisory-board-300145134.html

[Wytnucls]

More reference to authority (people on the payroll), instead of unequivocal demonstration of the product capability. 

What deep knowledge of circuitry is required to stick an off-the-shelf converter on top of a AA battery?
Or do they still maintain they cooked up their own converter in a QFN package, without infringing on the existing patents?

[Fungus]

Alexander.

So Rod Walsh has a company running on high-drained batteries?   

I think Rod will be disappointed. I wonder if he'll sue Ali R. for lying to him.

[PeterL]

Then there is the issue of the test protocols that are being submitted to test laboratories that bear little resemblance to the actual normal operation region of the device. I fully understand the need for a passive load in an RF chamber. Using a 1K ohm resistor to generate a 2.25 mW load on a device that supposedly works best on a high drain device with a 100-200X load does not make a representative test. It is surprising that someone would submit such a "test" to the FCC as the basis for approval.  I could understand the 2.25 mW load as part of a *series* of tests, but certainly not as the one and only test.

A test with multiple batterisers in series would also be necessary IMO. Almost all devices I know need at least 2 batteries, so that's very normal use-case. Multiple switchers in series can create interference frequencies, and the switching noise of one batteriser could confuse the control-loop of the other. I also think it would be more realistic to connect the resistor with wires of 10cm or so.