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

[firewalker]

Update!  Jay_Diddy_B wants to send me his boost converter from this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/new-project-a-batterruser/msg739648/#msg739648

..to use in my test rig.  So, once that arrives, I'm going to pop it into the test rig between the battery holder (with brand new duracell AA's) and the GPS unit, and run the test in the exact same manner as my first test.  This should give us a very interesting stand-in for the real batteriser.   Thanks Jay!

don;t forget. He must send you two pieces.

Alexander.

[Fungus]

What about a StepUp that have it's output following the battery voltage?

I mean that, let's says that our step-up is able to output
- 1.5V
- 1.3V
- 1.2V
- 1.1V
- 1.0V
- 0.9V

It would need to be able to step-down as well.

But, yes, it might actually prolong battery life by optimizing the voltage being delivered to the device.

I can see it now: Batteriser II (now with more monkeys!)

[LabSpokane]

If it was a legitimate report then why would there be a need for any sort of investigation?

Yep. Why would somebody who actually works at UL need to start an investigation? The UL reference number is clearly displayed on Batteroo's image. Surely they can just look it up in their database and give a yes/no answer.   

It's a different department with their own records system and they use a different tracking number to provide traceability.  It's done to make sure that UL "closes the loop" with the investigation, however long or short it may be.  It is bureaucracy, but it's a good thing in this instance.  A tracking number means the issue won't be just forgotten or lost. 

[f4eru]

This Vaporware is now in the phase where it slowly disappears.

[Godzil]

What about a StepUp that have it's output following the battery voltage?

I mean that, let's says that our step-up is able to output
- 1.5V
- 1.3V
- 1.2V
- 1.1V
- 1.0V
- 0.9V

It would need to be able to step-down as well.

But, yes, it might actually prolong battery life by optimizing the voltage being delivered to the device.

I can see it now: Batteriser II (now with more monkeys!)

Yep Stepdown is also part of my idea, the idea is to choose the output voltage which is higher than the cutoff voltage and the closest to the current battery voltage to reduce the current load on the battery.

[LabSpokane]

If it was a legitimate report then why would there be a need for any sort of investigation?

Yep. Why would somebody who actually works at UL need to start an investigation? The UL reference number is clearly displayed on Batteroo's image. Surely they can just look it up in their database and give a yes/no answer.   

For me this shows they have definitely crossed the line from people who just don't really understand what they are selling, and don't want to admit they are wrong after so much work, (a flawed but kind of understandable human trait) to actual conscious fraud.

I would not read anything into the assignment of an investigator.  It merely means that they will look into the matter.  Nothing more.  Please don't interpret UL's response as taking sides.  It's not fair to them.   

[MikeW]

If it was a legitimate report then why would there be a need for any sort of investigation?

Yep. Why would somebody who actually works at UL need to start an investigation? The UL reference number is clearly displayed on Batteroo's image. Surely they can just look it up in their database and give a yes/no answer.   

For me this shows they have definitely crossed the line from people who just don't really understand what they are selling, and don't want to admit they are wrong after so much work, (a flawed but kind of understandable human trait) to actual conscious fraud.

I would not read anything into the assignment of an investigator.  It merely means that they will look into the matter.  Nothing more.  Please don't interpret UL's response as taking sides.  It's not fair to them.

I would be highly surprised if it doesn't turn out to be so.

People can search the UL database themselves online, an actual UL employee can't do the same thing in 5 seconds? Nah.

[Fungus]

The UL reference number is clearly displayed on Batteroo's image. Surely they can just look it up in their database and give a yes/no answer.   

It's a different department with their own records system and they use a different tracking number to provide traceability.  It's done to make sure that UL "closes the loop" with the investigation, however long or short it may be.  It is bureaucracy, but it's a good thing in this instance.  A tracking number means the issue won't be just forgotten or lost.

Internal support ticket. Opened in one department, closed in another...?

Makes sense.

[naxxfish]

There's one product this would sort of "work" for. Cheap incandescent bulb flashlights. The lamp would stay bright right up until the point at which the battery is totally dead - and then would completely die without any warning. Not really what you want if, for example, you're caving!

Totally pointless for anything else.

[Fungus]

There's one product this would sort of "work" for. Cheap incandescent bulb flashlights. The lamp would stay bright right up until the point at which the battery is totally dead - and then would completely die without any warning. Not really what you want if, for example, you're caving!

Totally pointless for anything else.

If "flashlight brightness" is the only thing you're after then do yourself a favor and get yourself an LED flashlight, not a Batteriser. You'll get better regulation AND double the battery life due to LED efficiency and optimized booster circuit.

eg. This is the graph for a Fenix LD01 (as featured on EEVBLOG #78):



It's a thing of beauty.... note how brightness is perfectly flat above 1.0V then at exactly 1.0V it fades linearly down to 0.4V (ie. it doesn't suddenly leave you in the dark).

THAT, ladies and gentlemen,  is a boost converter for a flashlight. Batteriser can't even come close.

[LabSpokane]

If it was a legitimate report then why would there be a need for any sort of investigation?

Yep. Why would somebody who actually works at UL need to start an investigation? The UL reference number is clearly displayed on Batteroo's image. Surely they can just look it up in their database and give a yes/no answer.   

For me this shows they have definitely crossed the line from people who just don't really understand what they are selling, and don't want to admit they are wrong after so much work, (a flawed but kind of understandable human trait) to actual conscious fraud.

I would not read anything into the assignment of an investigator.  It merely means that they will look into the matter.  Nothing more.  Please don't interpret UL's response as taking sides.  It's not fair to them.

I would be highly surprised if it doesn't turn out to be so.

People can search the UL database themselves online, an actual UL employee can't do the same thing in 5 seconds? Nah.

This will ultimately be reviewed by one of UL's attorneys. That takes time, even though the answer should seem obvious. None of us have knowledge as to exactly what Batteroo purchased from UL.

[dr_frost_dk]

about 14 days have passed in the campaign extension and only about 30.000$ extra..... maybe people are finding the debunk video´s or this forum + pages about debunking the batteriser.

Approx 2000$ pr day is not much, at this rate they will get maybe 60.000$ extra vs the 290.000 they had at end of 1 due date....

And i just love the response to 5ky´s GPS test.
"the test is not vaild because he does not have batteriser sleves to test with....." 
But People will put 2 and 2 together when they see 17+ hours vs 2.5, and going to read actual reviews (old even) saying runtime was 15+ hours...

[edy]

about 14 days have passed in the campaign extension and only about 30.000$ extra..... maybe people are finding the debunk video´s or this forum + pages about debunking the batteriser.

Approx 2000$ pr day is not much, at this rate they will get maybe 60.000$ extra vs the 290.000 they had at end of 1 due date....

And i just love the response to 5ky´s GPS test.
"the test is not vaild because he does not have batteriser sleves to test with....." 
But People will put 2 and 2 together when they see 17+ hours vs 2.5, and going to read actual reviews (old even) saying runtime was 15+ hours...

It may help to look at other such campaigns that have gone into "extended funding" mode. I would like to think EEVBlog videos had something to do with it, but I have a feeling we are but a small blip. And we would have been an even smaller blip if Batteroo didn't actually pay any attention to Dave's videos and never bother to mount any rebuttals. I am not sure how many people would have found the debunking videos on their own without Batteroo actually calling attention to them in their replies.

In any case, look at the "Airing" (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/airing-the-first-hoseless-maskless-micro-cpap#/story). It is a complete sham, yet they managed to get 896% funded in their initial campaign period (forgot how many days it was). They set a $100,000 goal, so this means they sucked in $896,000. Since then, it has been a few months and they have slowly climbed up to $1,038,970 (that's another $142,970... or about 15%). If Batteriser makes $60k on top of their $300k it will be almost 20% more.

These campaigns with their paid hype media marketing only works a short time. After that, it is hard to make the "news" again. I don't think Batteroo would have made much more money even if nobody debunked them. And if the debunking videos actually worked, I would have expected at least a bunch of the existing Batteriser backers to have asked for a refund.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

about 14 days have passed in the campaign extension and only about 30.000$ extra..... maybe people are finding the debunk video´s or this forum + pages about debunking the batteriser.

Approx 2000$ pr day is not much, at this rate they will get maybe 60.000$ extra vs the 290.000 they had at end of 1 due date....

And i just love the response to 5ky´s GPS test.
"the test is not vaild because he does not have batteriser sleves to test with....." 
But People will put 2 and 2 together when they see 17+ hours vs 2.5, and going to read actual reviews (old even) saying runtime was 15+ hours...

I have just put two my boost regulator is in the mail (Xpresspost) so that 5ky can repeat the GPS test with the batteries being boosted to 1.5V. Short of having a Batteriser, this is close a test as can be performed.

I measured the efficiency of my boost regulators at 90.5% when boosting 1.25V to 1.5V at 100mA.

When the testing is done we will have a really good idea on how the Garmin GPS would behave with a Batteriser.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[GoneTomorrow]

It's impressive how quickly this became the second-most-replied-to thread on this forum

Nope, it's not even in the top 10.

I guess I should have said "sub-forum," as in the EEVBlog Specific forum. In other words, probably going to end up being your most-discussed video. I suppose you can thank them for stimulating forum discussion.

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

All this is because Dave has been bought by Big Battery 

I read that somewhere in a Youtube comment section. Don't throw rocks at me please..

[timofonic]

All this is because Dave has been bought by Big Battery 

I read that somewhere in a Youtube comment section. Don't throw rocks at me please..

Too late...

[andrew.perrong]

Very very interesting development.
Looks like Batteriser changed the text of their Facebook post, to say that UL only "verified" their results, and did not do any testing.

See the difference here:
https://www.diffchecker.com/0zygo1pn

Seems to me like UL must have gotten a hold of them and requested the change.

So to me it seems like Batteriser called up UL and had them certify the test procedure as a proper one, and UL themselves did not actually do the testing. However, as always, there are ways to cheat on these tests.

[Nerull]

This might be preemptive ass-covering, my reading of ULs licensing terms is that if you don't have a cert - which comes with a contract that must be regularly renewed to remain valid - they don't even want you mentioning them in relation to your product. Any advertising using the UL name also needs to be approved in advance, precisely to prevent this sort of confusion about what UL actually did.

I don't think that's going to be enough to save them if they're not being completely honest.

[ccs46]

This might be preemptive ass-covering

It doesn't matter what they cover their asses with, UL is going to kick them...   

[onlooker]

I would guess they do not have something substantial with UL. But they do want to maintain the UL story in some form for 2 more weeks before the IGG campaign is over.

[Wytnucls]

It is pretty obvious to everybody by now, that Batteroo's gizmo cannot live up to their grossly inflated performance claims, but they are still grasping at every straw, to convince the public otherwise.
In my book, such intentional deception is akin to daylight robbery.

If they finally admitted that the DC booster can only be mildly beneficial in very specific cases, they would have an ethical business, but a lot less financial rewards. We will know soon whether the Rhooparvars have any moral fiber.

[Fungus]

If they finally admitted that the DC booster can only be mildly beneficial in very specific cases, they would have an ethical business, but a lot less financial rewards. We will know soon whether the Rhooparvars have any moral fiber.

Admitting the truth would mean cancelling the IGG campaign. Not gonna happen.

[dr_frost_dk]

about 14 days have passed in the campaign extension and only about 30.000$ extra..... maybe people are finding the debunk video´s or this forum + pages about debunking the batteriser.

Approx 2000$ pr day is not much, at this rate they will get maybe 60.000$ extra vs the 290.000 they had at end of 1 due date....

And i just love the response to 5ky´s GPS test.
"the test is not vaild because he does not have batteriser sleves to test with....." 
But People will put 2 and 2 together when they see 17+ hours vs 2.5, and going to read actual reviews (old even) saying runtime was 15+ hours...

I have just put two my boost regulator is in the mail (Xpresspost) so that 5ky can repeat the GPS test with the batteries being boosted to 1.5V. Short of having a Batteriser, this is close a test as can be performed.

I measured the efficiency of my boost regulators at 90.5% when boosting 1.25V to 1.5V at 100mA.

When the testing is done we will have a really good idea on how the Garmin GPS would behave with a Batteriser.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

And it sure is good to have you guys willing to use your time to actually test the claims, i so hope this campaign gets closed but that not the way IGG does things.....

In other "news" new video out.

Well if you can call it "new", just the same crap, and that voltage spike theory is so busted by 5ky´s test

[firewalker]

Nothing new to this video.

Alexander.