I agree, I could easily see this happening if all the initial testing was performed using only unloaded cell voltage. It would mean you'd need to be completely ignorant of internal resistance i.e. not have even the most basic of electrical/electronics knowledge.
SO;
At this point; is this guy just plain stupid thinking his idea would work?
OR;
Was his intent to rip off his backers?
yet with countess people after him with pitchforks, he can't say a single thing about production after all this time?
Given the lack of communication this seems rather apt:
SO;
At this point; is this guy just plain stupid thinking his idea would work?
OR;
Was his intent to rip off his backers?
60 days from IGG funding to shipping was a stupid estimate
[I had no idea of the cultural reference* for your creation, so I followed the image tag to your photobucket which tried to sell me a calendar. Very appropriate.
.. I'm not sure a standard calendar will have enough months to cover the delivery schedule ...
I'm not sure a standard calendar will have enough months to cover the delivery schedule.
SO;
At this point; is this guy just plain stupid thinking his idea would work?Yes, demonstrably so.
QuoteOR;
Was his intent to rip off his backers?He likely thought people would never to do the proper testing required to show it's claims are BS. They'd get something out of it and then just toss them.
60 days from IGG funding to shipping was a stupid estimate
Not so if you are the former CEO of Flextronics, and you had pre-production prototypes which they claimed in no uncertain terms that they had.
Backers should never forget this!, direct from their IGG campaign page it clearly states they had pre-production prototypes before the IGG campaign was launched. Yep no evidence has ever been presented that they had "pre-production" prototypes. In fact all the evidence is to the contrary.
I don't know what he started out thinking when he came up with the original idea but there's no way he believed Batteriser worked as claimed when those two videos were made. No Sir. Nope.
QuoteOR;
Was his intent to rip off his backers?He likely thought people would never to do the proper testing required to show it's claims are BS. They'd get something out of it and then just toss them.
"Hoping nobody would notice" is really the same as "intending to rip them off".
I don't know what he started out thinking when he came up with the original idea but there's no way he believed Batteriser worked as claimed when those two videos were made. No Sir. Nope.I seem to recall even the engineer driving the oscilloscope for Bob in the video response looked deeply uncomfortable, and I don't think that was just from being camera shy.
At this point; is this guy just plain stupid thinking his idea would work?I think that's how it started. If you don't know much about batteries, or the difference between voltage and power, and you make the mistake of measuring the unloaded voltage of a 'dead' battery thinking it's the cut-off voltage of the device, and you don't stop to think "wouldn't someone have done this already?", then it sounds like a great idea.
The 800% claim is exactly what you get if you make all those mistakes. You start with a nominal 1.5V (don't measure it, that's what's written on the battery). Run your device until it stops. Take the battery out and measure the voltage. 1.4V! It's hardly used anything! If we can boost it back up to 1.5V, we can keep going. Between 0.6V and 1.4V is another 8 steps of 0.1V.
But it must have become clear to them long ago that it couldn't possibly work. I don't know what they're doing now.
Not relevant to pre-production prototypes, but still my favourite smoking gun quote:
Dec 22nd 2015: "The Batteriser final assembly is underway and packaging is nearly complete."
Not relevant to pre-production prototypes, but still my favourite smoking gun quote:
Dec 22nd 2015: "The Batteriser final assembly is underway and packaging is nearly complete."
For that to be true, you must have had pre-productions units done and tested to satisfaction. Yet 3 months after that statement not even a single photo has been shown after countless requests.
At this point; is this guy just plain stupid thinking his idea would work?I think that's how it started. If you don't know much about batteries, or the difference between voltage and power, and you make the mistake of measuring the unloaded voltage of a 'dead' battery thinking it's the cut-off voltage of the device, and you don't stop to think "wouldn't someone have done this already?", then it sounds like a great idea.
The 800% claim is exactly what you get if you make all those mistakes. You start with a nominal 1.5V (don't measure it, that's what's written on the battery). Run your device until it stops. Take the battery out and measure the voltage. 1.4V! It's hardly used anything! If we can boost it back up to 1.5V, we can keep going. Between 0.6V and 1.4V is another 8 steps of 0.1V.
But it must have become clear to them long ago that it couldn't possibly work. I don't know what they're doing now.
Yes, and all the evidence points toward this as an explanation. The number of times they have changed their story and revised their battery voltage cutoff point theory shows it.
e.g. IIRC, the patent says 1.4V and makes no mention of unloaded voltage. The campaign originally said 1.4V in some places and then 1.3V, but still no mention of open circuit voltage testing. Then they changed their claim to 1.3V. Then only after all that they finally admitted they measure the battery voltage unloaded. Then they had to admit what it goes down to under load, but still had to refuse to admit that's the correct way to measure it otherwise they would lose face. So then they doubled down and produced the infamous monkey video with it's absurd claims and hand waving.
After engineers still laughed at them they doubled down again and produced the snail video and the bogus GPS testing videos.
For those following from the beginning it's obvious they knew nothing about battery technology or proper measurement, and they got called out on it. Their responses have been classic weasel responses and intimidation to silence critics. But of course it all backfired spectacularly.
I really still do believe they originally had honest intentions, and thought they were on winning idea. Unfortunately for them, engineering reality has a habit of biting flawed ideas in the arse.
...and what about all that stuff about their offices being burgled for their intellectual property??!!
Nobody would really want any of their IP, as even calling it that is a catachresis or misnomer...