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

[ccs46]

The shitstorm nears... I'll get out my special popcorn.

Whats so special about it? Is the corn kernels grown by nude virgins in the fields? Special type of seasoning.

It's 800% better than other popcorn as tested and confirmed by a certified monkey.

Does the butterier produce 800% more buttery popcorn?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr.B]

The shitstorm nears... I'll get out my special popcorn.

Whats so special about it? Is the corn kernels grown by nude virgins in the fields? Special type of seasoning.

It's 800% better than other popcorn as tested and confirmed by a certified monkey.

Does the butterier produce 800% more buttery popcorn?

No, only New Zealand butter can do that. 

[BradC]

No, only New Zealand butter can do that. 

Baaaaaaterizer?

[g.lewarne]

Another facebook purge has occurred !

So glad we get those screencaps

[Galenbo]

The entire PCB could be a fake. It seems very suspicious that Yahoo Makers couldn't get the Batteriser to work at all.

I don't know why these conspiracy theories keep doing the rounds, ...

Because we saw no product, only a video and photoshop corrected images of a metal sleeve.
Because the guy that claims to have developed it, is a proven multiple liar.
Because the "miniaturisation problem" induces other problems that cannot result in "having a product"
Because what seems simple to you is not for him. He does not know the difference between charge and voltage.
Because we do not believe whatever your so-called high-respected "journalists" google makers "say they saw"
Because as long as there is no proven cure for AIDS, there is no cure for AIDS. Don't show me the bottle or the packaging.

Apart from this, the specs they mention to be "the product" simply cannot exist. You debunked it yourself.

[EEVblog]

*snipped*
Apart from this, the specs they mention to be "the product" simply cannot exist. You debunked it yourself.

Give it a break, you keep harping on and on about this.
You are wrong.
Many people and journalists come to this thread to learn about what's happening and to get some engineering fact and professional comment. We don't want it to turn into conspiracy theory central.

[Galenbo]

Give it a break, you keep harping on and on about this.
You are wrong.
Many people and journalists come to this thread to learn about what's happening and to get some engineering fact and professional comment. We don't want it to turn into conspiracy theory central.

Agree on some parts, the only thing I do not like is "you are wrong"
I would like to learn WHY "I am wrong", and what data you use to come to that conclusion.

Please give some info about your high-respected "journalists" that saw "the product".
You did not see "the product" yourself.
Those "journalists" you run after for some conspiracy reason, are the same kind of guys ar Roohpavar.
Good at the drawing table, not understanding the difference between charge and voltage.

[drussell]

Apart from this, the specs they mention to be "the product" simply cannot exist. You debunked it yourself.

Now you're just talkin' crazy talk! 

Of course the product can (and does) exist, it is a very simple concept which could be assembled by virtually anyone using off-the-shelf components!

It is simply not going to perform anywhere close to their claims!

Please give some info about your high-respected "journalists" that saw "the product".

This has been discussed multiple times before!

Please go back and actually read the thread rather than harping on the same busted ideas over and over again.

[Galenbo]

Now you're just talkin' crazy talk! 

Of course the product can (and does) exist, it is a very simple concept which could be assembled by virtually anyone using off-the-shelf components!

It is simply not going to perform anywhere close to their claims!

It will be a boat that does not perform like the claims in staying above water.
That's no boat. It's a rock.

Get the basics, learn something about specs and product development before saying I talk crazy.
Not meeting specs=no product.
Not meeting legal laws=no product.

Please give some info about your high-respected "journalists" that saw "the product".

This has been discussed multiple times before!

No it's not, you are wrong again, it always stopped with the story about those strange "high respected journalists"
Kids from 19 years old get no points, if they do not deliver a report with correct graphs and data.
The way Dave does himself: prooving the debunks with correct data and graphs, the setup measurement results in the video.

If Roohpavar comes up with some claim, and doesn't illustrate it, he's demonized. Well that's what he deserves.
But when those conspiracy "high-respected-journalists" come up with something, without ANY illustration....whoowhoo...

Please go back and actually read the thread rather than harping on the same busted ideas over and over again.

correcting this guy's errors and assumptions could quickly become a full time job.

[drussell]

It will be a boat that does not perform like the claims in staying above water, like the claims.
That's no boat.

That's a ridiculous analogy...  It is a DC-DC converter.  It will work as a DC-DC converter.

Get the basics, learn something about specs and product development before saying I talk crazy.

What makes you think I don't know the "basics, something about specs and product development?"

You're not bringing anything productive to this discussion.  Please keep the bluster and noise down if you refuse to go back and read the answers to your questions which have already been discussed over and over...

Not meeting specs=no product.
Not meeting legal laws=no product.

What?!  There are plenty of products out there that don't meet their published specifications. There are plenty of products out there that don't meet their legal, safety or other certifications or requirements!

No it's not, you are wrong agian, it always stopped with the story about those strange "high respected journalists"

I must respectfully disagree.  This has been covered in depth multiple times before in this thread! 

Please go back and actually read the whole thread in its entirety if you believe we haven't covered that yet rather than harping on the same busted ideas over and over again.  It's all in there.

[Galenbo]

It will be a boat that does not perform like the claims in staying above water, like the claims.
That's no boat.

That's a ridiculous analogy...  It is a DC-DC converter.  It will work as a DC-DC converter.

"the product" is not a DC-DC converter, you are wrong again. "the product" is the device that works like the specs they claimed.
You are turning and twisting this thing till it fits your agenda.

What makes you think I don't know the "basics, something about specs and product development?"

Your total ignorance about every aspect of the facts.
And because you now even try to defend illegal stuff to defend a part of your case.

No it's not, you are wrong again, it always stopped with the story about those strange "high respected journalists"

I must respectfully disagree.  This has been covered in depth multiple times before in this thread!  : palm :

He palm guy, be constructive, because that's what we saw you expecting from others too, show me the measurements and report of those "highly-respected journalists"

[Galenbo]

...just talkin' crazy talk! ... harping on the same busted ideas ...a ridiculous analogy... not bringing anything productive ... keep the bluster and noise down   : palm :

In case this guy looks for work, he can become the new social media expert at Batteroo.

[Godzil]

You should calm down Galenbo.

We all agree here that the product they have shown and wanted to put on the market will never get to the targeted specs, BUT there are existing product, there are some pictures that does lot come from batteroo (Le the one from the Yahoo article) it has been seen by people that are not from Batteroo.
It does not mean that the product will work as they say, but there is a large difference between "no product" and "not work as marketed".

And you already know that this is basically a DC to DC converter, and that it's fairly easy to build one.

And again, we all here agree that this product will never work as marketed, but it will work, at least to reduce the battery life.

[Galenbo]

You should calm down Galenbo.

Why exactly do you think I am not calm?
Why exacly do you not address the insulting populist palm guy?

..BUT there are existing product, there are some pictures that does lot come from batteroo (Le the one from the Yahoo article) it has been seen by people that are not from Batteroo.

Totally agree on that sir, not so clear why you felt the need to say me that.

there is a large difference between "no product" and "not work as marketed".

Till we see some proof, there is "no product" A well-covered "expierience" by some "well-respected journalists" does not change this.
And a wheel is no car, a windshield is no car, a sleeve is no batteriser, an off the shelf DCDC converter chip is no batteriser.

And you already know that this is basically a DC to DC converter, and that it's fairly easy to build one.

Yes sir, please choose:

-fairly easy to build one, so the prototypes are all around now for 6 months.
-the devil details and constraints made that it is "a little bit less easy" to build it all. Even after "5 years", no shipment.

[lpickup]

"the product" is not a DC-DC converter, you are wrong again. "the product" is the device that works like the specs they claimed.

Well, by this definition of "product", I doubt you will find anyone on this forum that will disagree with you (except the Batteroo trolls that is).

But everyone else defines "product" as whatever it is that Batteroo ends up shipping to their backers/customers (if anything at all), whether or not it meets the specs (and nobody thinks it will).

By everyone's definition of "product" as defined above, it is entirely feasible that Batteroo could easily have created SOMETHING, that while not meeting the 800% specs they claim, could at least work well enough to show a keyboard battery meter read 100%.  In fact it's been done (albeit not on a miniature scale) and there is no reason to believe that the necessary components couldn't be sized to "almost" fit in the form factor proposed by Batteroo and still function in this way.

Sure, that is not 100% proof, but the fact that you haven't seen it personally (which seems to be your standard) doesn't make 100% proof that it DOESN'T exist either.

If you aren't willing to accept the definition of "product" as everyone else is using that term, then we really don't have anything to talk about as we are talking about two different things.

And as I said, by YOUR definition of "product", I think just about everyone on this forum would agree with you that it doesn't exist.  So what's the point in "debating" that?

[Galenbo]

But everyone else defines "product" as whatever it is that Batteroo ends up shipping to their backers/customers (if anything at all), whether or not it meets the specs (and nobody thinks it will).

If you choose to use this definition, there is "No Product" at this moment.

Sure, that is not 100% proof, but the fact that you haven't seen it personally (which seems to be your standard) doesn't make 100% proof that it DOESN'T exist either.

Sorry to corrrect you, "seeing it personal" could help, but I never said or implied it is the only possibility.
It doesn't even have to be academically scientific or legally proven, even a simple measurement setup, with affordable recording could largely be enough.

If you aren't willing to accept the definition of "product" as everyone else is using that term,...

What exacly do you define as "everyone's" definition at this moment sir? Because all these "everyone's" definitions get confusing.

[lpickup]

But everyone else defines "product" as whatever it is that Batteroo ends up shipping to their backers/customers (if anything at all), whether or not it meets the specs (and nobody thinks it will).

If you use this definition, there is "No Product"

If you can show me a definition of "product" that says it has to meet a certain spec, I will concede that point.  But even so, what does it matter?  Everyone else is using a different definition anyway.

Product
noun
a thing produced by labor
an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

[Galenbo]

..And as I said, by YOUR definition of "product", I think just about everyone on this forum would agree with you that it doesn't exist.  So what's the point in "debating" that?

Even if you think I succeeded, It's not my goal to make everyone agree on the definition "I" introduced.

I see 2 things happening here:
1) personal differences in what definition to use.
2) personal differences on how to prove that definition is reached.

And then I saw the "palm" guy implying "whatever" on point 1, and also "whatever" on point 2.

I'm sure this may look to some as if I am a "definition" totalitarian, but let's stay reasonable.

1) Assembled device, fits, all components present, pcb present, works like described, provides output voltage under load
2) DaveStyle video wich shows the device, shows putting, removing, shows multimeters and datalogger.

Everybody can have his own add/removes of course, everybody has a different background, does something different to earn money, or is scammed in the past in another way.
But nobody will force me to comply with the "1) whatever" "2) whatever" way of "thinking"

[lpickup]

Sorry to corrrect you, "seeing it personal" could help, but I never said or implied it is the only possibility.
It doesn't even have to be academically scientific or legally proven, even a simple measurement setup, with affordable recording could largely be enough.

Fair enough, but every time someone presents a case where the "product" has been seen/demoed to someone, it never seems to meet your standards, leaving me to believe that the only proof you would accept is a personal viewing.

But of course this gets us to your definition of "product".  Again, I don't think anyone will disagree that NO ONE has seen a device demonstrated that meets all of Batteroo's claims, and in fact it doesn't exist.  If that's all you're talking about, we can agree and end the discussion here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that you think that nobody has seen ANY type of DC-DC device (whether it meets a particular spec or not) and that any time we did see a device it was nothing more than an empty sleeve and photoshopped/edited falsehood.

Take for example the GPS video and the associated full length "explanation"...now there was definitely some fakery going on there (for example, I believe they halted the test at the first warning screen), but I don't have a problem accepting the fact that they did fit the batteriser device with SOME kind of prototype DC-DC converter to get the behavior they showed.  In fact it probably would have been more difficult for them to completely fake the results.  Sure, the device would not meet their stated claims.  Nobody is arguing that.  But I do believe they fit a DC-DC converter onto a sleeve and ran the GPS from it, whereas it sounds like you think it was nothing more than an empty sleeve and faked waveforms.  Is this not the case?

[McBryce]

If I check the claimed miles per gallon / Litres per 100Km of my car (or any car I've ever owned), I'm pretty sure that my car doesn't achieve the manufacturers claimed specs. But it still exists (I can see it outside) and it's still a product.

McBryce.

[mikerj]

I see 2 things happening here:
1) personal differences in what definition to use.
2) personal differences on how to prove that definition is reached.

I see one thing happening here: someone is getting worked up and ranting about inconsequential crap which is helping no one.

[Galenbo]

... where the "product" has been seen/demoed to someone, it never seems to meet your standards, leaving me to believe that the only proof you would accept is a personal viewing.

I am aware of only 1 claim to have "showed the product", and that was that conspiracy "high-respected-journalists"
It would be wrong to generalise what I think about this event, and make those conclusions.
My previous post explains my very mild standard on what I personally see as acceptable.

[lpickup]

1) Assembled device, fits, all components present, pcb present, works like described, provides output voltage under load

By this definition, I will concede that such a device does not and cannot exist (and I'm pretty sure almost all would agree).

Just be sensitive to the fact that when others are talking about a "product" that has been seen, demonstrated, and even potentially shipped by Batteroo, they are probably using a definition that is much less restrictive; that usually implies a sleeve, a DC-DC converter that more or less fits on the + terminal of the battery, but almost certainly does not meet the claim of 800% or 1.5A current, etc.

As long as we can agree and understand that we are talking about two different definitions, I don't see why we have to debate this any further.

[Galenbo]

If I check the claimed miles per gallon / Litres per 100Km of my car (or any car I've ever owned), I'm pretty sure that my car doesn't achieve the manufacturers claimed specs. But it still exists (I can see it outside) and it's still a product.

Beautiful. If you want to succesfully convert this story to be used here, you better talk about a car that is promised, they are working 5 years on "it", is still not shipped, has some patent issues that will not easyly be solved, EMC testing (or local variant) is still a total joke, images appear in PROVEN scam videos,...
But hey, Google-make "saw" it.

[Galenbo]

..As long as we can agree and understand that we are talking about two different definitions, I don't see why we have to debate this any further.

You don't have to, I don't have to.

You show a very good difference between 2 possible definitions, but say nothing about the other point.
Even if you choose the most loose definition, what's proof enough for you that even that thing exists?