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

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi group,

I was thinking of starting a new thread "Show us your positive battery terminal', but I decided to post here. 

I have already posted picture from a Fluke 337 and Fluke 189.

Here are some pictures from a Logitech Mouse:





In this picture I am pulling battery against the negative terminal (spring) so we can see how much space is left:



Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi,

Meanwhile...

over on IGG these are the latest comments:




Just in case they get deleted when they wake up in California.



Jay_Diddy_B

[EEVblog]

Sounds like Shakeel has no idea what "horrendous" is when it comes to crowd funding campaign. 3 months late is probably the average for hardware projects.

[Brumby]

You have changed your use of the word 'guarantee'.

Your original use may not be what you meant, but that's what I picked up on.

I didn't realise it was a requirement to specify that the device actually make electrical contact in its intended application 

Oh FFS.  I give up.

[Barny]

Sounds like Shakeel has no idea what "horrendous" is when it comes to crowd funding campaign. 3 months late is probably the average for hardware projects.

I think that's not the problem.
There isn't even a sign that Butteriser have started the production or plan to start the production soon.

Except deleteing negative posts, there is no sign of activity.
That's much worse than being a little bit late.

[mikerj]

Oh FFS.  I give up.

FWIW I understood exactly what you are saying.  I think someone is just being argumentative for the sake of it.

You can't guarantee there will be any usable space at either end of the battery, but you have a better chance at the positive end if you can use the space around the nipple.  At least that space will always be there for cells that are stacked in-line, it's the top one in the chain that could be (in fact likely to be) problematic.

[AmmoJammo]

Oh FFS.  I give up.

FWIW I understood exactly what you are saying.  I think someone is just being argumentative for the sake of it.

You can't guarantee there will be any usable space at either end of the battery, but you have a better chance at the positive end if you can use the space around the nipple.  At least that space will always be there for cells that are stacked in-line, it's the top one in the chain that could be (in fact likely to be) problematic.

But there isn't any more space at the positive end than there is at the negative! Thats the whole point! Except in the very few devices that stack the cells, and even then you can't assume there's any more clearance in the device itself, only where the two cells contact each other!

[Brumby]

Oh FFS.  I give up.

FWIW I understood exactly what you are saying.  I think someone is just being argumentative for the sake of it.

You can't guarantee there will be any usable space at either end of the battery, but you have a better chance at the positive end if you can use the space around the nipple.  At least that space will always be there for cells that are stacked in-line, it's the top one in the chain that could be (in fact likely to be) problematic.

Thank you.


.... and that's all I'll be saying on this tangent.

[Brumby]

Does anyone have any updates on Bob the Batteriser?

[g.lewarne]

Does anyone have any updates on Bob the Batteriser?

other than a total lack of any meaningful communication, nope

[ziq8tsi]

In fact, by putting it on the nipple end, you're creating empty space under the new positive terminal, as it has to be raised off the board.

I believe it was suggested earlier in the thread that the best solution* may be to use some kind of spring as the new positive contact.  Devices that need a nipple will find one, and those that are a tight fit or have the cells end to end will squash it flat.

* (other than not having a batteriser at all)

[drussell]

But there isn't any more space at the positive end than there is at the negative!

I must respectfully disagree with you on that one.  There most certainly is more space available around the positive button in many cases and there is never more space available at the negative end.

I agree with most of the others here that in many types of battery holders and any time cells are stacked inline, the space around the button is avaiable to be filled by components without increasing the length at all.  If you put the components at the bottom you will increase the length.  For some holders it may be just as bad for the components to be on top but it is always bad (additional-length-wise) if they're on the bottom.

Alkaline cells generally have the seal at the base so a base mounted boost board wouldn't need a sleeve to connect to the other terminal of the cell,

Indeed, and you don't have to stuff around with a crappy positive terminal, and shitty stainless steel sleeve, that won't fit in a lot of battery holders.....

You still need to connect to both battery terminals regardless of where the actual circuitry physically goes!  If you essentially make a negative voltage regulator, you still need a wire or sleeve or something going to the positive post!  You can't magically make the converter work with only one connection to the battery! 

If you add, say, 1mm worth of PCB and components to the top of the battery, around the nipple, you still have to add the nipple on top of this, to make contact with the battery holder terminal, this nipple needs to extend the same height off the PCB as the original did off the battery, or you're guaranteeing it won't even make contact in a lot of battery holders...

You're assuming that the "new" positive button is solid.  It's not, it is a spring contact! 

I believe it was suggested earlier in the thread that the best solution* may be to use some kind of spring as the new positive contact.  Devices that need a nipple will find one, and those that are a tight fit or have the cells end to end will squash it flat.

Yes, of course! That is really the only logical thing to do for the positive, and is precisely what Batteroo has always shown to be doing!  It has to be a spingy contact of some sort to stick up and make contact when needed but also be able collapse when necessary to reduce the addition of length as much as possible.

.... and that's all I'll be saying on this tangent.

Agreed!! 

[Ian.M]

Read my post again and refer to the Alkaline cell diagram.  Notch the jacket at the edge of the base any you have a place to contact the positive terminal, so avoiding the sleeve which is unavoidably delicate and likely to jam in the holder. It would of course require a tech savvy user or a special battery jacket notching tool.

However I still think its a sh-te idea no matter which end of the the battery you put it, for most of the reasons that have been explored in detail already

[drussell]

Read my post again and refer to the Alkaline cell diagram.  Notch the jacket at the edge of the base any you have a place to contact the positive terminal, so avoiding the sleeve which is unavoidably delicate and likely to jam in the holder. It would of course require a tech savvy user or a special battery jacket notching tool.

Oh, I'm well aware of the standard construction arrangement for most primary cells, it's just that expecting the average consumer to modify their batteries even if it just means cutting some plastic is completely a non-starter.

Also, I don't think the sleeve being flimsy is really a big problem.  It should be possible to make it plenty strong enough for this application without much effort.  I think the robustness of the sleeve is the least of Batteroo's problems. 

However I still think its a sh-te idea no matter which end of the the battery you put it, for most of the reasons that have been explored in detail already

I don't think many here will argue that it's not a completely ridiculous idea in the first place but that's not going to stop engineering-minded people from speculating, analyzing and evaluating this ridiculous idea.  Indeed, the very fact that it is so demonstrably ridiculous is precisely what makes it so entertaining to do so! 

[jippie]

As this device is able to draw 800% more energy from a single cell, why not use an AAA cell for the penlight device? More room for the electronics, better caps, better inductors, thicker copper, sturdier sleeve, beefier transistor and still almost 1200÷2700×800% = 350% gain.

[rrinker]

 If only...

Well, my Enloop set did come with adapters for C and D cell batteries - the C cell adapter takes the AAA batteries and the D cell takes the AA. One per adapter, it's not like the D call adapter is 4x AA in parallel or anything. They've been gathering dust in a drawer, I've never actually tried them. I guess if you have a low power C or D cell device, but most of the time the device requires the larger capacity batteries for a reason.

[mikerj]

But there isn't any more space at the positive end than there is at the negative! Thats the whole point! Except in the very few devices that stack the cells, and even then you can't assume there's any more clearance in the device itself, only where the two cells contact each other!

You have already stated that some devices (and gave a rather arbitrary 10% number) will have a non-recessed positive terminal connection, and in this case you do have more space at the positive.  Why are you arguing against yourself? 

[Halcyon]

As this device is able to draw 800% more energy from a single cell, why not use an AAA cell for the penlight device? More room for the electronics, better caps, better inductors, thicker copper, sturdier sleeve, beefier transistor and still almost 1200÷2700×800% = 350% gain.

Jippie here makes an excellent point. If the gain is so great, why not sacrifice a bit of extra capacity and turn it into an adapter sleeve for a AAA cell instead? Won't run into the issue of batteries with the Butteriser getting stuck inside devices either!

(Of course any high school electronics student knows that the Batteriser is complete horse shit)

[Muttley Snickers]

Yes but if you are going to start making those types of game changing iterations when then can we expect to see a device that can jump start the outboard on the boat powered only from a single  A23 cell, call me wet behind the ears if you like because trying to push start the boat isn't as easy as one might imagine, apparently......

[Delta]

Ammo Jammo is clearly working for Big Negative Terminal.  (and getting a bit boring)

[Smokey]

Next to be sued by the evil Energizer empire.... Samtec!!

https://www.samtec.com/channelyzer

[g.lewarne]

So, they are still "testing" their product.....right.  So they don't even have any mass production going on? or what?  It is interesting their back-and-forth on each and every excuse of the day

[Kjelt]

(Of course any high school electronics student knows that the Batteriser is complete horse shit)

Get your facts straight and leave innocent animals alone, it is Roohparvar's shit.

[timb]

I think you actually *are* better off with the PCB on the nipple (I'm sure there's even porn somewhere that backs this up, rule 36 and all). Why? Because you have to cover *both* ends of the battery anyway.

If the PCB is on the negative side, you still have to place a new nipple on top of the existing one to get access to and extend the positive terminal. So now you've extended the battery by the PCB thickness on the negative side and at least 1mm on the positive side.

If the PCB is on the positive side, you can place it in the 1mm space around the existing nipple and have a terminal that extends 1mm, then simply have a piece of metal that's a fraction of a mm on the negative side to access that terminal.

So, since you *have* to access both terminals *and* extend the positive one anyway, it makes more sense to have the PCB on the positive side. Period.

[rrinker]

 So poorly handled, just some more excuses, with NO information. Compare that to the project for that USB power supply/scope/function generator posted in the "What did you buy this week" thread - if you visit the project page, back a while ago they had some issues sourcing components but posted about it on their project page AND continuously show pictures of the prototype and then the finished project as they were created and built. If Batteroo or whatever they want to call themselves is actually 'testing' something then how about posting a picture of it to the people who sent you money? Oh yeah, it doesn't really exist. If it did, they have to be the most idiotic people ever to keep hiding it all - a few simple pictures of the product undergoing testing or just showing a stack of them fresh from the factory or whatever would go a long way to addressing the concerns people are raising. How could you be that dense and not do that, assuming it really existed to show?